Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Climbing Accident, Skye

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations he has made into the conduct of the local police in Skye following the death of a climber on Sgurr Alasdair on 14th September.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I have received full reports about this regrettable accident and

Tractor Service expenditure, receipts and nett costs for each financial year from 1939 to 1947 were:


Year
Expenditure
Receipts
Nett Cost





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1939–40
…
…
3,076
18
2
104
5
7
2,972
12
7


1940–41
…
…
69,100
6
1
31,381
6
4
37,718
19
9


1941–42
…
…
197,006
13
2
108,173
16
1
88,832
17
1


1942–43
…
…
414,906
5
2
258,824
2
5
156,082
2
9


1943–44
…
…
520,953
16
10
398,811
5
6
122,142
11
4


1944–45
…
…
566,406
16
2
447,679
11
2
118,727
5
0


1945–46
…
…
618,517
16
11
453,229
6
4
165,288
10
7


1946–47
…
…
549,559
12
2
351,560
7
0
197,999
5
2


1947–48
…
…
627,805
13
1
334,427
8
0
293,378
5
1


Totals
…
…
£3,567,333
17
9
£2,384,191
8
5
£1,183,142
9
4


This expenditure includes certain capital expenditure on new machinery, storage accommodation and equipment amounting to £165,076 over the whole period of which £74,949 was expended in 1947–48 for new machinery. In that year for the first time the D.A.S. paid for all new machinery acquired. In previous years those costs were mainly charged against the M.A.F. account.

Non-Traditional Houses

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of aluminium houses produced by Blackburn Works, Dumbarton, during the past year.

Mr. Woodburn: During the year ended 30th November, 1948, the firm produced 2,857 temporary and 5,080 permanent aluminium bungalows.

I am communicating with my hon. Friend

Mr. Hughes: Can we take it that the Secretary of State will do everything in his power to impress upon the local police in that area the necessity of being helpful on these occasions?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I think they were helpful in this case.

Agriculture (Tractor Service)

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the profits, or losses, incurred by the tractor section of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the years 1939 to 1947, inclusive.

Mr. Woodburn: The net cost of the tractor service of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the years 1939 to 1947, as shown in the Department's Appropriation Accounts, was £1,183,142. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for each year during the period.

Following is the information:

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the prices of the following permanent non-traditional houses, Cruden, Orlet, B.I.S.F., Weir Steel House, Whitsun, Fairhurst, Lindsay, Stuart, Mifton-Clyde and aluminium.

Mr. Woodburn: As the answer involves a large number of figures I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Timmons: May I take it that the cost of some of the houses is between £1,500 and £1,600?

Mr. Woodburn: It depends on what my hon. Friend means by "some." Most of them are below that figure.

Mr. Timmons: These particular houses are aluminium. I want to know if the aluminium house costs between £1,500 and £1,600.

Mr. Woodburn: It depends on which aluminium house my hon. Friend means. There is the temporary aluminium

Type
Price
Date of Tender
Remarks


Cruden (first programme).
£1,241 to £1,346 (blocks of 2)
17.5.46
Prices, which exclude fencing, are graded for varying numbers of houses per site from 4 to 48.


£1,223 to £1,328 (blocks of 4)


Cruden (second programme).
£1,465 to £1,830 (the highest cost is for a remote area in Argyll).
28.4.48
Prices, which exclude fencing and gates, electric service, connections to sewers and water mains and watching, vary according to the number of houses to the number of houses per site from 4 to 26 and to the area where the houses are to be built. An outhouse, where required is provided at extra cost.


Orlit (first programme)
Type R/C/4 … £1,220
31.5.46
Prices, which exclude gas and electric services, wash boilers, cookers and fencing, are for a minimum of 50 houses per site within 50 miles of Edinburgh or Paisley.



Type R/C/5 … £1,340



Type R/C1/4 … £1,180



Type R/C/4/5 … £1,240



Type F/1/4 … £1,130


Orlit (second programme).
£1,294 to £1,339
1.1.48
Prices, which exclude gas and electric services and fencing and gates, vary according to the area where the houses are to be built.


B.I.S.F.
£1,267 (500 houses per site)
1.2.46
Prices exclude cooker and tail drain. Additional sums of payable to cover steel delivery charges to sites between 50 and 150 miles from Glasgow.



£1,287 (200 houses per site)



£1,307 (50 houses per site)


Weir "Quality" (first programme).
£1,160
14.8.45
Price excludes foundations and services.


Weir "Quality" (second programme).
£1,226
1.9.46
Price, which excludes gas and electric services and fencing, is for a minimum of 50 houses per site within 15 miles from Coat bridge. Additional charges are made to cover the extra cost of building in smaller numbers and in remote areas.


Whitson-Fairhurst
Type C42A
…
£1,172
10s.
31.3.46
Prices, which exclude gas and electric services and fencing, are for a minimum of 50 houses per site.



Type C42B
…




Type C44A
(end)



Type C44B
(end)



Type C44A
(mid)
£1,132
10s.



Type C44B
(mid)



Type C52A
…

£1,292



Type F44A
…

£1,094

house built at the end of the war and the permanent aluminium house built since then. I think my hon. Friend had better look at the figures.

Mr. Timmons: I am speaking of the permanent house. My right hon. Friend knows very well to which house I am referring. He has continued to impose on the local authorities aluminium houses costing in the region of from £1,500 to £1,600 against houses which cost £300 or £400 less.

Following is the information:

Type
Price
Date of Tender
Remarks


Lindsay 
£1,155

7.3.46
—


Stuart (first programme).
Type 4C/2
£1,252
31.5.46
Prices, which exclude gas and electric services and fencing, are for a minimum of 100 houses per site.


Type 4T/H 
£1,235



Type 4T/6 
£1,230



Type 4F/4 
£1,140



Stuart (second programme.
Type 4C/2 
£1,498
20.1.48
Prices are for a minimum of 80 houses per site and exclude cookers, gas and electric services, fencing and gates.


Type 4T/4 
£1,471



Type 4T/6 
£1,462



Type AF/4 
£1,361



Myton-Clyde 
£1,250

27.8.47
Price excludes cooker and clothes poles.


Aluminium bungalow (first programme).
£1,593 (20-49 per site)
30.4.47
Prices exclude clothes poles.


£1,579 (50-99per site)




£1,574 (100-149 per site)




Aluminium bungalow (second programme).
£1,422 (20-49 per site)
30.4.47
Prices exclude clothes poles.


£1,408 (50-99 per site)




£1,403 (100-149 per site)




£1,399 (150-199 per site)




£1,397 (200 and over per site)




The Weir First Programme is the subject of a contract between the Ministry of Works and the Weir Company which embodies a condition that the price will be reduced by the amount of any profit margin, as disclosed by cost investigation, exceeding what is agreed to be a fair and reasonable profit.


The arrangements for the B.I.S.F. and Cruden houses are in the nature of "central orders" by the Secretary of State, but contracts are entered into between the promoters and the housing authorities concerned. The agreed prices are subject to review after cost investigation.


The price of the Lindsay house was negotiated with contractors by Ayr County Council.


In the other cases, the programmes have been arranged between the Department of Health for Scotland and the promoters, but local authorities sharing in the programme place orders and enter into contracts with the promoters in the usual way. The prices are not subject to costing.


In all cases, the prices are exclusive of abnormal underbuilding and other "special considerations" and are on a fluctuating basis as regards variations in rates of wages and prices of materials occurring after the "date of tender."

Building Costs

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has been taking to reduce house building costs in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: This Question was fully dealt with in the recent report of the Scottish Building Costs Committee, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) on 7th December about the action taken on the Committee's recommendations.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that report made one of its principal points that the productivity of labour has fallen by nearly 35 per cent.? What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that—anything at all?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I think 1 answered that question on the same occasion. The productivity of labour depends on a great many circumstances

and those which are under the responsibility of the Government, such as the flow of materials, we have greatly improved.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the same report shows that the greatest increase is in relation to profits, manufacturers' profits being 125 per cent. up, and does he intend to do something to stop this profiteering?

Building (Direct Labour)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the Laidlaw Committee's findings on direct labour, he will take steps to encourage this method, where suitable, in an endeavour to reduce building costs.

Mr. Woodburn: The adoption of a direct labour organisation is a matter for each local authority to decide in the light of its local circumstances. I am always prepared to approve direct labour proposals at suitable costs, and since the war there has, in fact, been a small increase in the number of local authorities who have adopted this method of building.

Loans

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the number of loans advanced under the Small Dwellings Acquisition (Scotland) Acts for the period 1st January, 1939, to 31st December, 1947, was only 50; and whether he will take steps to encourage and increase the use of these facilities.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I hope that the publicity given to my hon. Friend's Question will encourage local authorities to make use of their powers under these Acts.

Mr. Willis: Would my right hon. Friend also look into the question of the limits under these Acts, because they seem to be rather out of date in view of the present high cost of building?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disability Pensions

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-Servicemen disabled in the 1914–18 war have had their claims to disability pensions admitted since 1945 for the first time.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The number admitted from 1st January, 1946, to 30th November, 1948, was 342.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions how many 1939–45 war pensioners are pensioned at the 40 per cent. rate for amputation of leg below the knee; and what would be the annual cost of increasing their pension to the 50 per cent. rate as paid to the 1914–18 pensioners of the same disablement.

Mr. Marquand: There are approximately 2,000 pensioners of the 1939–45 war who are pensioned at the 40 per cent. rate for amputation of the leg below the knee. The cost of increasing their pensions to the 50 per cent. rate would be about £33,000 a year.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the fact that, so far as I know, this is the only outstanding difference in the assessment as between the 1914–18 and the 1939–45 pensioners, and the fact that the amount to bring them into line is

not very great, will the hon. Gentleman consider removing this grievance at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Marquand: The noble Lord knows that this is the only case in which the assessment made was less than that which applied in the previous war. In a large number of cases the assessments were increased in the Royal Warrant. The noble Lord is probably also aware that the scale of assessment laid down in the Hancock Report is incorporated in the Industrial Injuries Act.

Mr. Shackleton: asked the Minister of Pensions what was the total amount paid by his Department inclusive of all allowances to pensioners whose disabilities were assessed at 100 per cent. in the years ended 31st March, 1939, and 31st March, 1948, respectively; and what was the average weekly payment in each year per pensioner assessed at the 100 per cent. rate.

Mr. Marquand: For year ending March, 1939, a total of £3,372,400 and an average of £2 7s. 10d. per week. For year ending March, 1948, a total of £10,305,300 and an average of £3 17s. 3d. per week.

Mr. Shackleton: In view of the assertions that are being made about the small increase in the pension, can the Minister tell us what percentage of increase that represents on the average of the 100 per cent. Disability pension?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I believe about 61 per cent.

Pensioners, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) what variation has taken place in the number of ex-Service pensioners in Cardiff since 1945; and what was the total amount paid to Cardiff ex-Service pensioners in July, 1945, and at the latest convenient date;
(2) the total number of ex-Service pensioners in the City of Cardiff; the number of such pensioners who are 100 per cent. disabled; and the number who have received an increase of over £1 a week in their pension since 1945.

Mr. Marquand: I regret that the records of my Department are not kept in a form which enable me readily to give the information asked for in relation to particular cities or towns.

Australia and New Zealand (Discussions)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has any statement to make as to the results of the recent visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to his Department to Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Marquand: My hon. Friend made a full review of the position of British war pensioners in Australia and New Zealand, and was able to revise the regulations to overcome difficulties that had caused some complaint, especially in relation to delay in settling claims. He also had most useful discussions with responsible Ministers in both countries. He is preparing a full Report which should prove of great value. I should like to thank the two Dominion Governments for the great assistance they gave to my hon. Friend. I hope that it may be possible to give the House a fuller account at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Forces, Malaya (Conditions)

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement in regard to the conditions of service of our troops in Malaya; what amenities and relaxations are provided for them; and whether he is satisfied that the pay and allowances are adequate to enable these to be enjoyed.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I will, with permission, circulate that statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that according to the information I have in my possession here, the high cost of living in Malaya makes it practically impossible for our troops to enjoy the amenities to which I refer in my Question, and that recently there have been one or two suicides of officers owing to financial difficulties.

Mr. Shinwell: Officers and other ranks receive overseas allowance which varies according to rank and meets the increase in the cost of living. If the hon. and gallant Member has some information which is not in my possession, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it.

Sir T. Moore: If the right hon. Gentleman will keep the name secret.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Do these increases in allowances affect the particular area in which the officers and other ranks are employed?

Mr. Shinwell: The increased pay and allowances affect every area.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the overseas allowance is on the same basis as it was in the Middle East during the war? If it is, it is nothing like adequate.

Mr. Shinwell: I could not say without notice.

Following is the statement:

British troops serving in British units in Malaya receive the same pay and allowances as British troops in the United Kingdom and, in addition, a local overseas allowance which varies according to rank, and to whether they are provided with accommodation, and accompanied by their families. These allowances are based upon local prices, including the cost of amenities, sports and recreations. Officers and other ranks serving with the Gurkha Regiment receive a further emolument called "Gurkha Service Pay." Leave centres at Penang and the Cameron Highlands cater for long leave. N.A.A.F.I. and the voluntary organisations associated with the Council of Voluntary Welfare Workers provide canteen and hostel facilities at Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere. The Forces Broadcasting Station, Radio S.E.A.C., broadcasts entertainment for British troops in Malaya. In addition, programmes broadcast by the B.B.C. General Overseas Service, Radio Australia, and by the local station, Radio Malaya, may be heard.

Pakistan (Release Scheme)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state if Army personnel under contract with Pakistan will receive their entitlements under the General Mobilisation Order, 1939, namely, 56 days' release leave and one day's leave for every month served overseas either in March, 1949, or at the end of their respective contracts with Pakistan.

Mr. Shinwell: The release scheme, under which?56 days? release leave and overseas service leave are granted, will come to an end on 31st March, 1949. After that date it will be exceptional for an officer to continue to serve on an emergency commission. Any officers who are allowed or obliged to do so will keep the right to release benefits, unless in the meantime they take short service or permanent Regular commissions.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does that mean that those officers and other ranks who are serving in Pakistan, if their contract with Pakistan has not run out by March, will be entitled to these various entitlements for previous service?

Mr. Shinwell: I have stated what it means, and it seems to me to meet the views of the hon. Member.

Sir W. Wakefield: If these personnel are in fact to be able to receive the entitlements to which they are entitled, it will be received with great satisfaction; but I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman's answer does mean that, because if they do not get the entitlement there will be a very real sense of grievance.

Stores (Thefts)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount of the losses from theft of stores in transit from Italy, Palestine, Burma, India and Pakistan to warehouses in the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: No losses of stores in transit since 1st January, 1947, from the countries mentioned in the Question have been reported which require to be written off under Treasury or Army Council authority. Some cases, however, which require such authority, may not yet have been submitted to the War Office. Information is not yet available centrally about any losses in transit written off by overseas commands under local powers.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Secretary of State explain how it is that a fortnight ago the Under-Secretary was able to state that the losses amounted to one-sixth of one per cent., if the figures are not available?

Mr. Shinwell: Some figures are available, but not all the figures for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Detainee Camps, Cyprus

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances the use of force and physical beatings is permitted to the military guards of the Cyprus Detainee Camps in dealing with refugees who have attempted to escape.

Mr. Shinwell: The military guards at these camps are allowed to use only the least force necessary to prevent escapes. Unnecessary force and physical beatings are strictly forbidden.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that some of these prisoners have been kept naked overnight after having attempted to escape, and will he inquire into that allegation and see that that kind of thing or anything similar is stopped?

Mr. Shinwell: That is another question. I was asked about the use of physical force and beatings. I was not aware that stripping anyone of his clothing could be defined in that way.

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Jewish detainees have succeeded in escaping from the Cyprus camps since the date of their inception; how many attempted to escape on 26th October; and how many were physically beaten with the butt end of rifles after their recapture.

Mr. Shinwell: Since these camps were opened, 161 of those detained are known to have escaped; of these, 156 have been recaptured. It is believed that others have escaped, but as British troops enter the compounds only if serious disorder occurs no physical check is made of the number detained. On 26th October seven people attempted to escape. It is reported that none was beaten with rifle butts after recapture. In view, however, of the statements which my hon. Friend has sent me I am having further inquiries made.

Dr. Segal: In view of the allegations which have been made, full details of which have already been supplied to my right hon. Friend, would it not be desirable to give wide publicity to the details of the evidence which my right hon.


Friend obtains during the course of his inquiries?

Mr. Shinwell: That will depend on the evidence.

Forces, Nigeria (Conditions)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War, what steps he is taking to improve the conditions of the young soldiers in Nigeria, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Shinwell: I have called for a report from the military authorities overseas on the allegations of which the hon. Member has informed me. When it has been received I will write to him.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Secretary of State for War realise how much conditions, prestige and the standard of the Army depend upon the character and the personality of the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Shinwell: That is why conditions are improving all round.

Foreign-born Wives

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War how many foreign-born wives of Service men are still awaiting repatriation to this country.

Mr. Shinwell: This information is not available centrally as arrangements for the transport of soldiers' wives from overseas to this country are made by the military authorities overseas.

Mr.shephard: Is is not a fact that there is very great dissatisfaction at the length of time these women have to ait before they can be repatriated to this country, and will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter to see if the transport can be supplied?

Mr.shinwell: I have no doubt that there is some dissatisfaction, but there are transport difficulties which cannot be overcome at present, although we are rapidly improving the position.

Married Quarters

Mr.Shephard: asked the Secretary of state for War how many married quarters have been built during the past

three years; and how many have been allocated to officers.

Mr. Shinwell: Quarters are provided both by building and conversion. The total so provided in the United Kingdom during the past three years is 961, the majority of which are for other ranks. As some of the converted quarters may be used for either officers or other ranks it is not possible to divide the total exactly.

Mr. Shephard: Is it not a fact that there appears to be no regard to providing quarters for officers, and if the Army is to be efficient, is it not just as necessary that the officers should be looked after as well as other ranks?

Mr. Shinwell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very much concerned about the provision of married quarters both for other ranks and officers. We have a programme, which has only recently begun so far as construction is concerned, and we will proceed with it as expediously as possible. I am very unhappy about the accommodation question and will do my best to improve it.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 961 apartments being provided have in fact been allotted to officers?

Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to admit very few. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I am not sure of the exact number because the figures are a little mixed. I would not care to commit myself, but I agree that it is very few—far too few.

Germany (Military Hospital Iserlohn)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and men were treated for venereal disease and excessive alcoholism at the 6th British Military Hospital at Iserlohn, Germany, between 1st January and 1st December, 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: During the period referred to, three officers and 690 other ranks were treated as fresh venereal disease cases at this hospital. During the same period four officers and two other ranks were treated for alcoholism.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether the Archbishop of Canterbury


and the leaders of the Free Church Council had facilities for inspecting this hospital before publishing their report on moral welfare?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know whether they inspected this hospital. Certainly the incidence of the disease has declined sharply.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that Questions framed in this way cast an entirely unfair and unwarranted reflection upon the whole of the British troops serving in this area; and if information is required, would it not be far better for hon. Members to obtain it personally from the Minister himself?

Mr. Shinwell: I am in the hands of hon. Members. I dislike the Questions, but I have to answer them.

Strength and Distribution

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War the strength and dispositions by Commands at home and abroad of the Army on 1st October, 1921, and 1st October, 1922, and the latest date for which figures are available; and the number of Section A Army reservists who were serving with the Colours at home and abroad on these dates.

Mr. Shinwell: As the reply contains many figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has studied these figures very carefully, and if he will consider, on this occasion, following the example of the War Minister of 1921—the present Leader of the Opposition—who, in the face of a grave international situation, when the country was on the verge of war in the Near East, managed to abolish conscription and reduce the Army to half its present size?

Mr. Shinwell: It is a very odd suggestion that I should be asked to follow in the footsteps of the right hon. Gentleman.

Following is the reply:

The distribution of all ranks by Commands at home and overseas on 1st October, 1921, and 1st October, 1922, is shown in the following table:



Command
Strength as at 1st October 1921
Strength as at 1st Occtober 1922


Aldershot
11,774
14,898


Eastern
19,946
19,721


Irish
57,116
19,985


LondonDistrict
9,087
6,292


Northern
6,810
7,000


Scottish
5,030
5,349


Southern16,350
16,927


Western
4,415
4,540


Miscellaneous
335
485


Total at Home
130,863
95,197


Aden
941
1,325


Bermuda
569
539


Ceylon
169
257


Constantinople
4,715
19,188


Cyprus
118
102


Egypt
13,136
10,786


France and Flanders
420
—


Gibraltar
1,948
1,780


India
66,843
66,884


Iraq
9,618
3,576


Jamaica
777
572


Malta
1,997
672


Mauritius
124
136


North China
189
37


Palestine
3,384
417


Rhine
4,779
9,010


Silesia
4,974
—


South Africa
104
—


South China
1,014
1,175


Straits Settlements
901
1,011


West Africa
259
227


Miscellaneous
133
30


Total Abroad
117,112
117,724


Non-Regimental Employment—Various theatres
9,331
5,782


GRAND TOTAL
257,306
218,703


It is not the practice to disclose the number of troops serving in a particular area at the present time. It is not possible to say how many Section A Reservists were called up at this time.

Pay Increases (Regulations)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that Reserved Rights under Pay Code 1946 permit no increase of marriage allowance to 23 per cent. of the men in an Army camp in Hampshire; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the new regulations with a view to enabling so substantial a minority to receive some benefit;
(2) whether he is aware that war excess does not permit any benefit to accrue to


62 per cent. of the men in an Army camp in Hampshire, National Service men omitted, as a result of the regulations governing the recent increases in pay; and whether he proposes to take any steps to make these increases apply more generally.

Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the second parts of both Questions is "No." The old code rates of marriage allowance payable under reserved rights and the war excess on pay which are referred to in the first parts of these Questions result from special arrangements for cases in which marriage allowance or pay under the old code exceeded rates admissible under the 1946 code. These special arrangements provide no justification for increases to marriage allowance and pay additional to those recently announced. As regards the percentages quoted, I am informed that, taking the Army as a whole, excluding National Service men, under 8 per cent. of married other ranks now receive old code rates of marriage allowance under reserved rights and under 8 per cent. of married and single other ranks now receive war excess on pay.

Mr. Donner: In view of the propaganda advertising the effects of the recent increases in pay, will not the Minister do something to make it a reality for the majority in some camps, and certainly take some steps to remove the widespread sense of grievance, bitterness and disappointment of these men?

Mr. Shinwell: It may be that in some particular camp there is a large number of men in this category; but, after all, it is not possible to eat one's cake and have it. These men did receive war excess pay, and we have to take that into account. We had to take that into account in the recent war.

Mr. Donner: Would the Minister look into it again from the point of view of the unfortunate effect this must have on recruiting?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not so sure that it has an unfortunate effect on recruiting, if the hon. Member refers to Regular recruiting, which for the Army is going very well.

Personal Effects (Claims)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for War the basis of compensation for the loss of personal effects during the Japanese war by British officers posted to Burma by his Department before the outbreak of war, many of whom had been accompanied by their wives and families; how many claims have been settled; and how many remain outstanding.

Mr. Shinwell: The basis of compensation for personal effects, including household goods, lost in Burma in 1942 is the value at 1942 prices after allowing for depreciation for age. Compensation is subject to certain limits. The number of claims settled by the War Office for losses by British officers posted to Burma before the outbreak of war is about 25; some 50 remain to be settled. An interim payment has already been made in most cases not yet settled. In addition, claims for loss of uniform and equipment have been settled by Army Paymasters, but figures for these are not readily available.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these officers took out their wives and families on an ordinary peacetime basis; are they entitled to no compensation for loss of household effects, such as linen, blankets, china and things of that sort?

Mr. Shinwell: I am asked about the compensation of British officers, not of their wives and families. I understand that all the factors have been taken into account, and the payment of compensation is, it appears to me, quite reasonable.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Should not the amount paid in compensation be based on the cost of replacement of these articles, rather than on the cost in 1942?

Mr. Driberg: Does this include the loss of personal effects of officers in this category who were killed in the war; and are their relatives entitled to compensation?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I cannot say.

Damage Claim, Brighton

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the claim of the Kemp Town Enclosures against his Department for damage done to the slopes opposite Sussex Square, Brighton, has now been awaiting settlement since 1945, and that his Department have now announced that there will be further delay since their representative who has been dealing with it has gone to New Zealand; and whether he will hasten a decision.

Mr. Shinwell: A claim was received on 30th April, 1946, and part of it was settled some time ago. Some delay occurred in reaching a final assessment of the remainder owing to the absence of certain details; the facts required from the claimant were received on 23rd August, 1948. Some negotiation or discussion with the claimant's agent is still necessary before a final settlement can be reached.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some 20 letters have passed between the Department and the Kemp Town Enclosures Committee since then, that the gentleman who has gone to New Zealand left only some notes behind, and that the Department has stated:
The Department has experienced much change in area officers and in personnel, and that if the documents have been mislaid, would the Committee supply them again?
Does he realise that we want to get our town cleared up quickly, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Shinwell: On the whole, it does not seem unreasonable. It is true that the claim was received in April, 1946, but part of that claim was settled some time ago. But the facts we required were received only on 23rd August, 1948, and it is obvious that we must have some negotiation and discussion before we can wind up this claim.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last letter received from the Department it says that all the forms have been mislaid and cannot be found?

Mr. Shinwell: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Overpayments (Officers)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that under War Office letter 30 /Gen./9921.S.9.B. it is laid down that overpayments to civil servants in His Majesty's Forces need not be claimed back and can be written off, he will extend this concession to officers who may have received overpayments through a mistake of his Department.

Mr. Shinwell: This instruction did not lay down that overpayments to civil servants serving in the Army could be written off automatically. It referred to a special arrangement limiting the amount to be recovered from some over-issues of balance of civil pay which had accumulated during the earlier part of the war, and which would normally have been recoverable in full. When an overpayment of service pay and allowances is made to a serving officer—whether a civil servant or anyone else—and has been received and spent by him in good faith, recovery of part, or even the whole, of the amount overpaid may be waived, after consideration of the case on its merits, particularly when recovery would involve undue financial hardship or when the overpayment resulted from a genuine misunderstanding caused by ambiguity of orders or regulations.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that no such overpayments in the case of officers have been remitted, and that almost invariably full repayment is insisted upon? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that equal terms are conceded to officers and civil servants in this respect?

Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when considering this, also sympathetically approach the system of stopping overpayments to officers where there is a hardship when claiming debts?

Mr. Shinwell: In the cases that have come before me we have taken into account all the circumstances and possible hardships and treated them accordingly, but the principle must be observed.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have recently had two cases of officers being overpaid, that in both cases of hardship the overpayment has been remitted, and that we are very grateful to the Secretary of State for acting in that way?

Commander Noble: Will the Minister reconsider the case of the senior officer, about whom I have been in correspondence with him, in the light of the statement he has just made.

Mr. Shinwell: I have already considered that case with the utmost sympathy, and I was bound to come to the decision that I could not proceed further in the matter.

Marriage Allowance

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider an alteration to the Royal Warrant to enable married officers under 25 years of age to draw the full marriage allowance.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) last Tuesday.

Sir T. Moore: Not having that reply with me, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say how he can justify a young doctor conscripted after marriage being denied the full marriage allowance and yet be charged with the life and death of the people with whom he is associated?

Mr. Shinwell: We do not want to encourage officers under 25 to marry, [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We do not want to encourage them to marry by offering this financial inducement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because that is the decision.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to put an end to the practice whereby he has the right to decide whether or not certain of his younger employees will get married?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not arrogate any such right to myself, nor do the Army Council. We have no right to prevent any soldier marrying, if he so desires, but we offer no financial inducement to officers under 25 to marry. Therefore, we make a distinction in regard to marriage allowances to officers over 25 and officers under 25.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the age of 25 is selected, and by whom it has been selected?

Mr. Shinwell: I have the impression that it was selected by the right hon. Gentleman with whom the right hon. Gentleman was associated.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in many cases the influence of a wife is very important and valuable and has a bearing upon the proper execution of the duties and responsibilities of a young officer? Will he not encourage rather than deter marriage?

Mr. Shinwell: I take note of what hon. Members have said, but this is a matter of alteration to the Royal Warrant, which is not easy.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has either misinterpreted or not listened to my supplementary question. I referred to the case of young doctors conscripted after marriage and not before marriage—you cannot prevent them producing children after they have been married.

Mr. Shinwell: I will not compete with the hon. and gallant Member as an authority on that subject, but, in fact, there is nothing in the Question about a doctor.

Compassionate Leave

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the delay in an average case between application by a soldier for compassionate leave for urgent family reasons and the granting of such leave; and if he is satisfied with the present arrangements.

Mr. Shinwell: In urgent compassionate cases there is no delay between the time of the application and the granting of leave. The current instruction to commanding officers states:
In all urgent cases, leave should be granted immediately, and the bona fides of the application will be checked as soon as possible afterwards.
In the more distant overseas theatres, where it is considered that a sea passage will create undue delay in any particular case, air passage may be authorised. There is no reason to believe that the present arrangements are not working satisfactorily.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is delay, and that in some cases it results in the soldier


arriving home after his wife, father, or mother has died? Will he see whether he cannot avoid this, as it not only causes distress to the individuals, but is very bad for the morale of the Army as a whole?

Mr. Shinwell: Commanding officers are not responsible for the delays, but are asked to carry out the instructions, which are quite definite in character. The delays may occur because of transport difficulties.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Are commanding officers given any definition of what urgent family reasons are, or are they left to interpret that themselves?

Mr. Shinwell: Commanding officers are usually intelligent enough to interpret what that means.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Troop-Carrying Transport

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War why hired furniture vans were used during the summer of 1948 for troop movements to and from week-end Territorial camps and for training during annual camps in place of normal R.A.S.C. troop-carrying transport.

Mr. Shinwell: The normal method of moving troops, including Territorials, to and from camps, is by rail. If the camp is inaccessible by rail, road transport is used. Whenever possible, War Department transport is provided for such movements, and to meet training requirements during Territorial Army camps; as, however, the resources of War Department transport now available in the United Kingdom are very limited, it is frequently necessary to resort to hiring. When this is necessary, civilian vehicles are obtained on hire under normal War Department contract arrangements. It is not the policy to employ furniture vans for troop carrying. Vehicles of this type would only have been used if no more suitable vehicles were available.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was not referring in my Question to long moves, which are usually carried out by rail? Does he not think it very disturbing at present, when the strength of the Territorial Army is very small, that our resources of R.A.S.C.

transport are not sufficient to carry out short moves? Does he not agree that this has a most depressing effect on recruiting—to see Territorial soldiers carried about in furniture vans?

Mr. Shinwell: I have said we do not employ furniture vans for this purpose. So far as I know, our transport arrangements are adequate, and I have yet to learn of depression among the Territorials.

Mr. Vane: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year I have been taken to two week-end camps by furniture vans of different shapes and colours and that they were used during the whole of the period I was in camp with a Territorial Brigade in Yorkshire?

Mr. Shinwell: If that is so, that mode of transport has had no serious effect upon the hon. Member.

Sir W. Wakefield: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman use some of the transport which has been dumped in various parts of the country and is now rotting away and becoming unserviceable. Why can not it be made serviceable and used?

Mr. Shinwell: We have a lot of transport, much of which is surplus, much of which is serviceable, and much of which could be made serviceable if we had the labour for reconditioning it.

Walking-Out Dress

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the issue of walking-out dress to members of the Territorial Army as an incentive to recruitment.

Mr. Shinwell: Owing to the present economic situation, I regret that it is not possible to consider an addition to the clothing scale for the Territorial Army for walking-out purposes.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how much this would cost?

Mr. Shinwell: I could not say without notice.

Colonel Dower: If this Question is put down at a later date when things are easier, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it sympathetically?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course, if the position were easier in respect of materials and labour I certainly should consider it sympathetically.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: If the right hon. Gentleman has no idea how much it will cost, how does he know what will be the commitment of the Treasury?

Mr. Shinwell: That is not the Question. I am not asked about cost. I am asked whether I will consider it.

Decorations (Qualifying Service)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether voluntary service with the Army Cadet Force by officers of the Territorial Army counts as service for the purposes of qualification for the Territorial Decoration or Efficiency Medal.

Mr. Shinwell: The service of any officer on the Territorial Army Active List is qualifying service for the Territorial Decoration or Efficiency Medal irrespective of how he is employed. Officers serving with the Army Cadet Force normally serve on the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers. Such service does not count as qualifying service for the Territorial Decoration or Efficiency Medal.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "qualifying" or "disqualifying"? I am afraid that I did not hear.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman had better look at the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Recruiting Exhibition, Perth

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of the recent Territorial Army Recruiting Exhibition held in Perth; how many people were present at the final ceremony addressed by Major-General C. M. Barber; and how many recruits were obtained.

Mr. Shinwell: The direct cost of this exhibition was about £ 80. In addition to 12 Association members and the staff of 24 who ran the exhibition, I understand that about 20 members of the

public listened to the closing address. Eleven recruits were attested for the Territorial Army during the exhibition.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the very strong resentment felt by the Trades and Labour Council at the remarks made by the major-general at this meeting, and also at the remarks made by a lady known as "The Red Duchess"; and is he further aware that these demonstrations are not worth the money?

Mr. Shinwell: We do not hold these exhibitions primarily for the purpose of enlisting recruits on the spot. I am informed that this exhibition aroused considerable interest, since which recruitment has been on the up-grade.

Major Lloyd: Could the Minister say whether the Trades and Labour Council referred to by the hon. Member was opposed to or gave any support whatever to this meeting?

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine they must have done so, because they were obviously very much interested.

UKRAINIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of prisoners of war of Ukrainian origin held in this country; the work they are engaged on; and the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to their future.

Mr. Shinwell: On 7th December, a total of 566 prisoners of war of Ukrainian origin were held in this country. As a large number of these are sick, none are available for work other than administrative work in their camp, and for the care of those in hospital. With regard to their future I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 22nd July.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Minister hope to make a statement on their future in the near future?

Mr. Shinwell: I should be very happy to make a final statement on this very difficult subject; but there are difficulties.

WAR GRAVES (RELATIVES? VISITS)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War to which countries persons of small means are enabled to visit war graves of near relatives under the Government scheme.

Mr. Shinwell: Visits under this scheme have been arranged to war graves in Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, Luxembourg and Norway, and in a few exceptional cases to those cemeteries in Germany which can be reached in a day's trip from the frontier.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the difficulties which prevent the Government scheme for assistance in visiting war graves of near relatives being extended to include Italy.

Mr. Shinwell: The voluntary organisations which have been good enough to take responsibility for running this scheme hope that they will be able to arrange visits to Italy next year. Naturally enough, they confined the scheme in the first place to the nearer countries which presented less difficulties as regards accommodation and transport.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the excellent conditions both of accommodation and transport now existing in Italy, can the right hon. Gentleman say when next year's scheme will actually start?

Mr. Shinwell: I am hoping that it will be possible to make a beginning in the early spring.

Dr. Segal: Is it not high time that some arrangements were initiated to enable relatives to visit graves in Tunisia, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.

Mr. Shinwell: It may be high time, but the transport difficulties are very great.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say how persons can apply for inclusion in this scheme?

Mr. Shinwell: There are various organisations. I thought that some time ago I furnished hon. Members through the OFFICIAL REPORT with the names and addresses of the voluntary organisations, but I will see that a statement is included
in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for War why of the 14,965 all ranks of the Polish Resettlement Corps, 6,481 are officers, 6,320 are N.C.Os. and only 2,164 are privates; and is he satisfied with this arrangement.

Mr. Shinwell: The high proportion of officers and non-commissioned officers to privates in the residue of the Polish Resettlement Corps is due to the fact that privates have proved to be considerably easier to resettle in civilian life than officers and non-commissioned officers. One thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven officers and 1,388 non-commissioned officers are over 50 years of age.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister satisfied that these officers and other ranks are not reluctant to find ordinary civilian employment in the country; and irrespective of the fact that they may be over 50 years of age, does he not recall that Englishmen over that age have to find jobs in the ordinary course of life, and are expected to do so?

Mr. Shinwell: I have no evidence of collective reluctance. Of course, there may be individual reluctance.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend say why an administrative staff of 8,000 is necessary to administer the affairs of these 14,000?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that my hon. Friend has got the figures wrong. It is true that the administrative staff is very large, but there is a lot of clearing up to be done.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that the difficulty in obtaining work for these officers and non-commissioned officers is due to their age, can he take any particular steps to see that it is made easier for them to obtain employment, which they are most anxious to obtain?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I have no doubt that they are anxious to obtain employment in civil life; there is evidence of that; but it is not so easy to fit them in. Unfortunately, many of the officers would like executive and administrative posts, which are not available.

Mr. Scollan: Are the Government aware that the people of this country are a bit tired of carrying these 14,000 people for five years—[HON. MEMBERS:" No."]—and how much longer are we to carry them? Either make them work or get them home to where they came from.

Mr. Shinwell: I must say, in fairness to the members of the Polish Resettlement Corps, that they were brought here under a commitment which we undertook during the war, and at any rate we must carry it out.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 978 officers and 4,891 other ranks of the Polish Resettlement Corps employed on administrative duties are actually engaged on duties connected directly with the needs of the 14,965 all ranks of which the Corps consists.

Mr. Shinwell: All the officers and other ranks of the Polish Resettlement Corps employed on administrative duties are either engaged on work in connection with Poles who are still in the Corps or on residual work, such as the winding up of pay accounts, in connection with the many members of the Corps who have bees relegated to the reserve but not yet finally discharged, or on the winding up of the affairs of the Polish Land Forces.

Mr. Piratin: That does not add anything to the reply given last week. Is it not the case that two-fifths of the Corps are engaged in administrative duties; is this not an intolerable state of affairs; and will the Minister look into this question to see whether perhaps this racket is being operated?

Mr. Shinwell: I have not only looked into it but personally visited the camps, and particularly the administrative headquarters, and I have satisfied myself that they are as anxious as we are to bring this work to a speedy end. It is not easy in the circumstances, and we must be fair to these people who have not yet been absorbed into civil employment.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is likely that the Corps will be wound up and these men passed over to the responsibility of the Assistance Board?

Mr. Shinwell: After all, we have made substantial improvement in the last six months. We are gradually divesting ourselves of this responsibility.

Major Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when this Russian vendetta against our gallant Polish Ally will stop?

Mr. McGovern: Reverting to my right hon. Friend's former statement about the number of executive posts, may I ask whether it is not true that in the initial stages these were exactly the tactics of the Communist Party, whose members were really all leaders?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not an authority on Communist Party technique.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Four-Year Programme

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now publish the Four-Year Plan submitted by His Majesty's Government to the O.E.E.C.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): The United Kingdom Four-Year Programme will be published as a White Paper as soon as the Interim Report of O.E.E.C. is ready for submission to the European Co-operation Administrator.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say, as the gist of the plan has already been published, on 22nd November, in the "New York Tribune," why this House cannot see it?

Sir S. Cripps: That has already been explained on more than one occasion.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Were the Foreign Office consulted before this plan was put forward, and is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied that it is a useful and helpful aspect of British foreign policy?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Mr. Stanley: Can the Chancellor say when the Interim Report is likely to be published, and when we shall be allowed to read officially what we have already been privileged to read informally?

Sir S. Cripps: I hope that it will be published before Christmas.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please explain why it is that this document was allowed to be published some three weeks ago in Paris and this House has no official cognisance of it?

Sir S. Cripps: As was explained, an undertaking was given by the various Governments that they would not publish, in advance of the publication of O.E.E.C., their own plans, but, unfortunately, there was some leak in Paris and it got out in that way.

Mr. Piratin: If in America our plan has been published—and I assume that America have not published their own plan—when may we he in a position to publish the French plan and the other plans concerned?

Sir S. Cripps: America have not got a plan.

Mr. Piratin: I meant France.

Mr. Donner: Apart from the leakage in Paris, as the Chancellor himself and the B.B.C., on 28th October last, revealed some of the more important sections of the Plan, is there any reason why Parliament should not be given the Report?

Sir S. Cripps: When the hon. Gentleman sees the Plan he will see that I did not reveal any important sections of it.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not a fact that part of the interim Report is available in the Library of the House of Commons and represents a monumental tribute to the efforts of the British worker and the British Government, and shows that this country is making a tremendous contribution to European recovery?

War Savings

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of accrued interest on all forms of war savings on which accrued interest is payable.

Sir S. Cripps: The interest estimated to have accrued on outstanding National Savings Certificates up to the 31st October, 1948, is £383.6 million, but it is impossible to calculate how much accrued

interest is attributable to Certificates purchased during the war. The question does not arise as regards other forms of war savings.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give an undertaking that this large liability is fully explained in the national accounts; and, what is more important, will he take into account this very large liability when framing his next Budget?

Sir S. Cripps: Liabilities are always taken into account when framing Budgets.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of war savings in all forms at the latest available date.

Sir S. Cripps: War savings, defined as gross purchases of National Savings Certificates in the war period from September, 1939, to August, 1945, plus the increase over the same period in the amounts standing to the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Banks and in the amount of stock held on the Post Office Register, amounted to £3,649 million. It is not possible to calculate how much of these war savings have been withdrawn or encashed; but the total of National Savings Certificates outstanding, including accrued interest, and of deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, and of stock on the Post Office Register, was £6,044 million at 31st October, 1948.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he thinks the British public will realise that every penny they give to national savings is subsidising the disastrous policy of Socialism?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think they will ever be so stupid.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the interesting figures given of the proportion belonging to the working classes—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Who are the working classes?

Mr. Scollan: Not the hon. and gallant Gentleman anyway. In view of the fact that £19 million is in the hands of the investing classes, will my right hon. and learned Friend say what is the cost of interest on this sum to the National Debt?

Land Registry

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is intended to remove the Land Registry to Durham; and whether he will review this intention and have it either in London or in a place within a reasonable distance from London, so as to avoid an increase in the difficulty of solicitors and others in transacting business with this department.

Sir S. Cripps: I am advised that in all but very few cases, business with the Land Registry can best be transacted by correspondence. For the few cases where oral discussion is necessary, I hope it may be possible to arrange for the appropriate officer at the Registry to attend in London.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is not the opinion of the Law Society, which has the most experience in these matters, and can he say why he has chosen a place 250 miles from London when the main business concerned in that particular Registry relates to London?

Sir S. Cripps: It was the opinion of the Land Transfer Committee, on which a number of solicitors were represented, that personal visits tended to delay rather than to assist.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Land Registry theory and to some extent practice is based on the assumption that attendance at the Registry for completion of purchases and mortgages and for the making of searches is in certain circumstances necessary, at least in principle; and if, in fact, the transfer to Durham is to be permanent is consideration being given to the making of any consequential alterations to the Land Registration Acts or to the Land Registration Rules and Orders? Finally, will the Chancellor again consult the Law Society, whose views are very different from those he has just given?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid the matter is now decided.

Capital Expenditure (Control)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present methods of controlling the expenditure of British capital in this country and abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: It is quite impossible to deal adequately with this very wide question within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know what particular aspects of control he has in mind I will give him what information I can.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say why capital expenditure is so closely controlled in this country when it is quite freely expendable in sterling area countries overseas?

Sir S. Cripps: There may be control by the local government, but the transfer of sterling must be free within the sterling area.

Special Contribution

Mr. McKie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons have not yet received demand notes under the special contribution levy; and if he will give an assurance that such persons will not be charged interest at 2 per cent. on the amount due by them if the demand notes are not received by 1st January.

Sir S. Cripps: Notices of assessment to special contribution have been issued in about 26,000 cases. The total number of individuals liable to contribution is estimated at about 125,000. Under Section 54, Finance Act, 1948, interest at 2 per cent. per annum from 1st January, 1949, to the date of payment is chargeable on all Contribution, whether assessed by 1st January, 1949, or not. Any contributor can, of course, pay in advance, and by doing so will to that extent save himself interest; payments made before 1st January, 1949, carry a discount of 2 per cent.

Mr. McKie: In view of the extreme reluctance with which the Chancellor said he had to impose this tax at all, and in view of the extreme difficulty officials are having with the assessments, will he not realise the great inconvenience to private individuals through having to make their own assessments and in view of this will lie not reconsider the whole matter?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The House voted on this and decided the issue in the course of the Finance Bill.

Captain Crowder: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these assessments are complicated and difficult, and would he agree that many


accountants and banks find it impossible to get his staff to pay it the attention it requires? In these circumstances could he not see his way to postpone the payment of the interest anyhow until 31st March?

Sir S. Cripps: The payer will have the use of the money until such times as it is paid over.

Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why such a very small percentage of these demands has gone out?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not a very small percentage. It is 26,000 out of 125,000, which is the estimated number.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Chancellor assure the House that so long as the 2 per cent. interest is punctually paid, there will be no demand for the contribution itself?

Sir S. Cripps: The contribution is payable on 1st January.

Mr. Charles Williams: How can a person, who has to pay this tax, possibly know what he should pay if the Government do not know what the demand is?

Sir S. Cripps: He can do what a great many people do—make a good guess and pay it in advance.

British Goods (Overseas Sale)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of dollars has been allotted for the purpose of acquiring departmental stores overseas for the promotion of the sale of British goods in 1945–46, 1946–47 and 1947–48, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: None, Sir, in the financial years referred to, but, in the current financial year, 750,000 dollars.

Burma (Sterling Area)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the contribution of Burma to the hard currency reserve of the sterling area in the last three years, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not in a position to give such figures, nor would they be particularly helpful since Burma's hard currency earnings during the period have

been very small. Her contribution to the resources of the sterling area has been her exports of rice. These have conserved hard currencies, which would otherwise have had to be expended on food for sterling area countries. Her co-operation in this respect has been most valuable.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that one of the reasons, in fact the main reason, for giving £2 million of hard currency to Burma was that it was currency she had earned, and does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer today show that Burma, far from supplying hard currency, is a debit factor in the sterling area?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly not, because if she cared to sell this rice for hard currency she then could contribute the hard currency, but it is better for us that she should sell the rice to us for sterling.

Yugoslavia (Dollar Holdings)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to protect dollar holdings inside this country claimed by British subjects interested in companies nationalised or confiscated by the Yugoslav Government, until the Anglo-Yugoslav trade agreement has been concluded.

Sir S. Cripps: His Majesty's Government are at present negotiating with the Yugoslav Government for the conclusion of several agreements, one of which will provide for the compensation of British subjects for property in Yugoslavia which has been nationalised. The property in the United Kingdom of Yugoslav companies which has been subject to the Custodian Order remains under control.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since the Yugoslav agreement with the United States, the Government are definitely claiming all dollar holdings outside Yugoslavia which might be in dispute, and already the banks in this country have been notified to that effect?

Sir S. Cripps: They may be claiming, but they are under the custody of the Custodian.

Occupation of Germany (Cost)

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the approximate cost to this country of the occupation of Germany since the end of hostilties; and what has been the approximate total value of reparations and any other benefits which have accrued to this country from Germany in the same period;
(2) what has been the approximate value of reparations which have accrued to this country since the end of hostilities; and what were the comparable figures in 1922.

Sir S. Cripps: The total cost to the United Kingdom of the occupation of Germany from the end of hostilities to 31st March, 1948, was approximately £537 million. The nominal value of the United Kingdom's reparation receipts in the period up to 31st July, 1948, was £30.4 million. I regret that it is not possible to give a comparable figure for reparations in 1922.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will my right hon. and learned Friend see that the maximum publicity is given to those figures inside Germany?

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that the reparations which have accrued to this country after the second world war are very much less than those received after the first world war?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not possible to get any comparable figures because before, a great quantity was in the form of goods and not cash, and the account was kept in a completely different way.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Do the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given include the air lift or not?

Sir S. Cripps: Those figures are up to 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If those are the figures resulting from our trying to occupy Germany, what would they be like if we tried to occupy Russia?

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether those figures include the cost of the trials of war criminals or is that a separate figure?

Sir S. Cripps: I could not answer that question without notice.

STRIKE, EUSTON STATION

Mr. J. Langford-Holt (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give a further statement on the strike position at Euston Station.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): As reported in the Press, the Railway Executive have issued a notice that unless the staff on strike report for duty today their services will be regarded as having terminated. The final position cannot be assessed today until all shifts have started.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any suspicion or indication of Communist influence in this strike, and what steps the Government are proposing to take to restore immediately and completely the public service which is being held up at this time?

Mr. Isaacs: At the moment the matter is being handled between the representatives of the union and the Railway Executive. I think it is only right that the House should be informed that the Railway Executive made it known that if the strikers would go back and if the man concerned, Rice, would accept the duty No. 59, they would be prepared to listen to any representations Rice might wish to make. The union regarded this as most reasonable. At the moment I understand that quite a number of men have returned to work, but until the evening shift reports for duty it is impossible to say. We hope their return to work will enable the arrears of goods to be cleared without imposing any further difficulties.

Mr. McCorquodale: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that this is yet another serious unofficial strike in a nationalised industry?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. We take note of that, but I would ask the House also to take note that a great number of the unofficial strikes have been outside the socialised industries.

Mr. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that a large resumption of work would take place today. In the absence of a large resumption, will he answer my question of what steps the Government propose to take to restore the public service?

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the House that I am in contact with my colleague the Minister of Transport with a view to ensuring that the public services shall not be impeded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Isaacs: Proceedings in Committee on Licensing [Money] and on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — LICENSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill consists of three parts. I propose to deal first with Parts II and III briefly, and then to deal with the history of the negotiations which led up to the framing of Part I, and to explain Part I to the House and deal with some of the caricatures of it which have found some publicity in various quarters.
Part II arises from two recommendations of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace. In paragraphs 270 to 272 of their Report, they pointed out that some limitation should be imposed on the sizes of licensing benches and recommended that county petty sessional divisions having 10 or more justices should exercise their licensing powers through a committee elected by the justices from among themselves. Those hon. Members of the House who are either members of petty sessional benches or appear before them on the occasions when they deal with licences, will be aware that it is not infrequent on such occasions for not sufficient seating accommodation to be available for the bench, and a number of people turn up who, fortunately for the general course of justice, are not seen on any other occasion. They appear to be able to adjudicate on these occasions after having the speeches of counsel and evidence repeated to them in the magistrates' room by their colleagues.
We propose to go rather further than the proposal of the Commission, and we therefore propose in Clauses 9 and 10 that in county petty sessional divisions and in county boroughs, not only licensing benches but also confirming authorities and compensation authorities should be committees of the whole body of justices or of quarter sessions. The Bill does not deal with non-county boroughs because the Roche Committee has recommended certain action with regard to smaller non-county boroughs and they will be dealt with in the Bill


which will be introduced during this Session to implement the report of the Roche Committee.
The Bill will, I think, in this respect clear away a mass of complications from the existing law under which these licensing authorities, for reasons which are obscure even to experts in these matters, are sometimes committees and sometimes the whole body of the local justices or of quarter sessions. I am quite sure that it will make for the respect of the law if less unwieldy bodies adjudicate at licensing sessions.
Clauses 11 to 17 contain a number of minor and consequential proposals and minor amendments of the law relating to the work of licensing authorities. The second recommendation of the Royal Commission, found in paragraph 128, was that the law should be amended to remove difficulties which have been caused by the fact that under the existing law justices who hold shares in any company which deals with intoxicating liquor, with the exception of railway shareholders, are disqualified from taking part in nearly all licensing work. The reason for the exclusion of persons whose only interest was as a railway shareholder was due to the fact that that part of the business which was carried on, which might affect licensing even remotely, was so infinitesimal that it could not be regarded as being likely to influence the attitude of the justices.
We propose to follow very much that principle, and we leave the matter to the discretion of the justices by providing in Clause 18 first, that a justice who holds shares beneficially in a company which deals in intoxicating liquor should not accept appointment to serve on a licensing or confirming or compensating committee unless he has disclosed the fact; and secondly, that the justices should not appoint him unless they are satisfied that the company's liquor interest is so small in comparison with the whole business that no reasonable ground arises for suggesting that the justice is not a proper person to serve on the committee. This will remove what has been an anomaly in the law hitherto, and I commend it to the House.
Part III has two main objects: the first, to replace by permanent legislation Defence Regulation 42C which empowers the police, if authorised by the

Secretary of State, to close undesirable night resorts; and secondly, to ease the work now in progress under the Licensing Planning Acts.
Clause 19 deals with what are known as bottle parties. The purpose of the bottle party, which was invented in the early 1930's, is to enable alcoholic drinks to be consumed in the early hours of the morning, regardless of the permitted hours fixed by the Licensing Act. The practice appears to be confined almost entirely to one small area in London—I have no report of this practice being followed anywhere outside that small, circumscribed area. In that area the last permitted hour for the service of drinks is eleven o'clock, but licensed premises and registered clubs are entitled, if the licensing justices are satisfied with their arrangements, to serve drinks with meals till midnight. Drinks may not be ordered there after 12 midnight, but an extra half hour is allowed for finishing them.
Licensed premises and registered clubs can, and do, also obtain special extensions of hours from the Commissioner of Police. This is done habitually at Christmas and the New Year, and at other times for special functions such as dances. Before the war there were frequent applications for these extensions, but in present conditions the Commissioner of Police reports that he is receiving few applications; only two hotels in London apply with any regularity for an extension, and they get one late night a week.
However, by the device of the bottle party it is possible for drinking to go on to any hour on any day of the week without an application for an extension. The arrangement is that the guest gives orders in advance for the liquor to be delivered at the party. I am now dealing with the theory of the matter—[Laughter.] I gather from the laughter that the practice can be best known from the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Provided that it has been sold during permitted hours, it may be drunk at any time.
This is a clear evasion of the law which gave rise to considerable abuse in London before the war. Under Defence Regulation 42C, the police are empowered, subject to appeal to the summary courts, to close undesirable bottle parties, and 73 closing orders have been made during the


time that the Defence Regulation has been in force. There is an appeal from the Commissioner of Police to the stipendiary magistrate, and in no single case has an appeal succeeded. I think that gives some indication of the abuse that these parties have represented. At the present moment there are about 15 bottle parties operating in London. Presumably they more than meet the demand, for I am informed that most of them are not doing a very good business.
The Government consider that the demand for facilities for obtaining alcoholic drinks after 12 midnight can be met adequately by the arrangements under the existing law for special extensions of the permitted hours, and that the proper course is to amend the law so as to bring to an end that form of evasion which makes a bottle party possible. Clause 19, therefore, makes it illegal to supply or consume intoxicating liquor outside the permitted hours at any party organised for gain and held in premises kept or habitually used for parties so organised at which intoxicating liquor is consumed.
Subsection (1) does not apply to parties at licensed premises, canteens, messes, or registered clubs or under an occasional licence as the hours for supply of liquor are otherwise controlled in these cases. Subsection (7) exempts supply to, and consumption by, persons in premises where they are residing. Subsection (2) provides that the afternoon break in the permitted hours is not, for present purposes, to be regarded as outside the permitted hours. The object of this is to avoid interference with unlicensed assembly rooms which may be hired for afternoon parties, such as wedding receptions, which are genuinely private parties but might nevertheless come within the definition in Subsection (5) of the phrase "organised for gain." Clause 20 gives the justices the same right of granting search warrants for bottle parties as they already have as respects licensed premises.
Clause 23 deals with what are known as bottle shops. These are retailers' premises where wine and spirits are sold for off consumption under an excise licence for which a justices' licence is not required. The present law was enacted so that wholesalers could carry on an incidental retail trade without a justices' licence, but it has been discovered that

the wording allows what are virtually retailers and nothing else, by obtaining a wholesale licence, to evade the law and, in fact, to run a series of retail bottle shops. There are many of these cases in which undoubtedly the business has been of a genuine character. Therefore, Clause 23 (2) provides that where business has been carried on continuously since 15th November, 1948, the first application for a justices' licence shall be treated as an application for renewal, thus giving the applicant, if his application is refused, the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. In that way, those businesses of this character which are not genuine can be eliminated and those which have some claim to be regarded as genuine are safeguarded.
As far as these two parts of the Bill are concerned I am somewhat embarrassed, I must confess, by the support of the licensing trade. Hon. Members who receive its monthly bulletin will recollect that in its article dealing with the Bill a sentence read as follows:
The provisions of the Bill in regard to licensing justices and the embodiment in general licensing law of certain Defence Regulations which have been effective in checking evasions of the permitted hours are most welcome.
I have also received a letter from the British Hotels and Restaurants Association assuring me that they welcome and support the elimination of the contrivance to evade the law known as bottle parties. They say that they are preparing some proposals which they will submit to me to meet any bona fide demand that there might be from the tourist trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is in that glass?"] I still have to appeal to the generosity of the House as have not yet recovered from the sore throat I caught at the Cenotaph on 7th November. I quite realise that in connection with such a Bill as this such an infirmity might be open to suspicion were it not for the colour of the liquid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gin?"] Like Sir Philip Sidney, if there should be any Member also suffering from the same infirmity who has doubts as to the purity of the liquid, I will readily concede that his need is greater than mine.
I now come to Part I of the Bill. It has excited very considerable interest and, in view of the prevailing shortage of newsprint, a very considerable amount of comment in the public Press. I want


to make it clear from the start that, like most Home Secretaries, I am not anxious to enter into the troubled controversies of amendments of the licensing law. I have always thought also that the trade shared that dislike. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised when, late in 1946, I received a letter from the trade which suggested that the passing of the New Towns Act and the creation of the new towns would make it advisable for discussions to take place as to the way in which licences could be obtained in the new towns.
I want to make it quite clear that I did not start the negotiations, neither did I appreciate, I am bound to say, the situation in the same way as the Brewers' Society. They made the discovery that one million persons would be moving from the County of London alone into other areas and that, with the departure of a million people, a number of licences—obviously, a substantial number of licences—would not be required for the remaining population, but that it would be necessary to make provision in the areas to which that million people went for new licences to be granted.
They drew my attention to the fact that this population would consist of three groups. There would be the existing population in the new town, the population from the large centre to which the new town might be a satellite—at that time people had the idea more of satellite towns than of new towns—and the population that would come in from other industrial areas. They pointed out that it might be a good thing if the licences could follow the people. I have no doubt that most of the people concerned who wanted to use a licence would have preferred that the licence should precede them. The suggestion was made to me of trying to find out roughly where the people had come from and saying, "Well, that wipes out that licence."

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what period of time was visualised in that transfer of a million persons?

Mr. Ede: It was not I, but the Brewers' Society, who visualised the transfer. I am trying to detail a very complicated arrangement to the House and I hope I may be allowed to explain it without any unnecessary interruption.
It became clear that these transfers would be something more than the ordinary transfer of a licence. Under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, a licence may not be transferred across a county borough. A London licence cannot be transferred to any of the home counties immediately adjoining it. Still less can a licence be transferred from London into Hertfordshire, Sussex or Berkshire, where some of these new towns are situated. Therefore, if anything was to be done, legislation would be needed.
The letter which raised this matter was written on 12th December, 1946, and a deputation was received by my officials on 22nd January, 1947. This matter was then explored. It was pointed out—I think it was mutually agreed—that this idea of identifying the unnecessary licence with the possibly required licence in the new town would be virtually impossible because it was not likely that people would be lifted up in hundreds or, possibly, thousands and moved off en bloc to a new town. What would happen would be a series of dribbles. The further point arises that the brewers in the new districts might not be at all ready to recognise the right of the brewer from the old district to take his licence into the new district. In fact, in the "Brewers' Journal" of June and July, 1946, certain very definite criticisms were urged against this proposal on behalf of the smaller brewers in the outlying areas. The general answer of the Brewers' Society was "You leave them to us." It was felt there was no really great amount of satisfaction to be got along those lines.
A further complication was created because, even in the overspill areas, which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will recollect, grew out of the town planning proposals, it had been found that difficulties arose on the boundaries of the areas. This is very important in view of the criticism of some of the wording of the Bill. A letter was received from the Brewers' Society, dated 14th July, 1947, urging that round these areas there should be provided what they called "Surrounding protecting rings." In view of the criticism which has been passed on the use of the words "adjacent" and "proximity," I think it will be seen that the difficulty of dealing with the fringes of areas was not confined to one of the parties to these negotiations.
After these discussions at the official level, I received a deputation, on 24th October, 1947, and, in receiving them, I said that it seemed to me there were three possible ways of dealing with the matter. The first was to rely on the existing law. That, I think, was agreed by both sides not to be possible. The second was an adaptation of the Licensing Planning Acts, and the third was the adoption of State mangement in these new areas. We spent a very pleasant morning, during which the brewers dealt with their ideas on the necessary adaptation of the Licensing Planning Acts and, at the end of the morning, when we were just breaking up for lunch, I said that I did not suppose that the discreet silence observed on State management was to be taken as implying consent. I gathered from a subsequent letter that I was right in that conclusion.
What I want to impress on the House is that everyone is agreed that some alteration of the law is necessary, that we cannot deal with the problems of the new town without an alteration of the law, and an alteration that might be very considerable, even if some alternative course to that which I am proposing to the House were adopted. Let us see what is the size of the problem. One gets petitions and postcards from the centres of highly congested areas indicating that the signatory to the petition, or the sender of the postcard, has been persuaded that this is a proposal to bring his public house in the centre of a congested area under State management.
There are on the sites of the new towns so far designated in England a total of approximately 64,000 people. That is one out of every 573 of the population of England. Even when those towns reach their full development, they will still not represent more than one in 110 of the population. Allowing for any development of the new town idea that has been considered up to the present, the total number of people many years hence in these towns would not exceed one in 55 of the population. That gives some idea of the extent of the problem that is confronting us.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby knows from his experience of the Licensing Planning Bills

during the Coalition Government how complicated and difficult is this problem of dealing with the rearrangement of licences. If necessary I could deal with the proposal to leave things as they are and say, "Let the licensing justices in these new areas deal with the matter as best they can and we shall hope that they will make a good job of it." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the initiative does not rest with them. They can only adjudicate upon applications which are made. If they think there is a need for a house but the proposal put in front of them is not for a house in quite the right place, they have to adjudicate on that application and not on some hypothetical application which might be brought forward if they rejected that application. After all, the brewers themselves reject the idea that we can rely on the ordinary law. The proposal we considered was that there should be a joint committee of licensing justices and members of the development corporation, without either the justices or the corporation having the right themselves to establish houses. Again, assuming they got a plan, whether it could be put into effect or not would depend on whether other people were willing to carry it out.
We therefore came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to have a scheme of State management under the general law which has ruled State management up to the present. State management was first started in 1916 and was brought into the general law by the Licensing Act, 1921. It requires the Secretary of State, who is charged with the duty of running the scheme, to have a local advisory committee which is representative of all the interests in the area where the scheme operates. That is obligatory upon me, and my predecessors in England and the predecessors of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have had such an advisory committee in both our countries since that day. I am bound to say that I do not think that the local advisory committee received much support or help during the 12, 13 or 14 years before I took office, because during that period, so far as England was concerned, it was left without a chairman. It was not until I was appointed to my present office that a chairman was appointed so as to bring the work of the committee together.

Mr. Osbert Peake: What was the Lord President doing?

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was in office himself, During the war the opportunities for an advisory committee were far more limited than in the years immediately before the war, when more attention should have been given to the development of this particular area. That is the local organisation.
The Secretaries of State also have a State Management Council, to which they appoint certain persons, two of whom are very well known persons in the brewing trade, and who have given most disinterested and loyal service to the State management scheme. They have been both fertile in their suggestions and warm in their eulogies of the system which they have been helping to administer. One of the weaknesses of the State Management Council has been the fact that no one from the districts under State management has served on it. I propose, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to take steps to strengthen the State Management Council, who are the people who more directly advise me on general policy, by the appointment of persons representative of the existing State management districts and some of the new State management districts. In that way, I am quite certain that we shall get a great deal more help in every way for the task which we have to undertake.

Earl Winterton: I wish to ask a question which may concern my constituents. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "some of the State management districts." Would he define a little more closely what he means? Why should one State management district as contemplated under the Bill be left out, and another included?

Mr. Ede: Perhaps I did not make the point quite clear. If we had one representative from each State management district the body would tend to be unwieldy. I should propose, after consultation with the local advisory committees, to get them to suggest names from which a selection can be made which would represent the general view of the local advisory committees. I am quite sure that that would be a good thing and would enable the local advisory committees to feel that when matters of

general policy were being considered their views would be heard and notice would be taken of them.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Do I understand the Home Secretary to say that these nominees from the different districts should also be members of the local advisory committee?

Mr. Ede: No, I did not say that; they might not be. They might be some person who could be taken as representing their views. I wish the House to understand that this State Management Council, although it is a very important body, is not and never has been statutory. It is, therefore, possible to have considerable and justifiable elasticity in the method of appointment in an attempt to get the best persons to serve.
The most astounding statements have been made in the Press as to the enhanced powers that I get under this Bill. There is only one new power given to me, and it is not given to the Secretary of State for Scotland because he has it already. That power is that for the signing of certain instruments I may delegate my authority to an Under-Secretary of State. Apart from that, every proposal which is in this Bill is merely a re-enactment of the existing law. Of course, the criticisms are completely contradictory. In the first place, I am told that these State-managed houses are dull, dreary places. In the next column, sometimes in the next paragraph, it is said that I ought not to have powers to provide games, music, or other—[Interruption]—that was in the "Sunday Times" the day before yesterday. The noble Lord really should read these papers with more care. I want to emphasise the fact that there is no extension of powers. There is a slight extension, as I have demonstrated, of the area over which this service will operate, an extension over 1/573 of the population of England.
I wish to deal with some of the criticisms that have been made. For instance the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), who I am pleased to see in his place, wrote an article in the "Daily Telegraph" in the course of which he said:
In Annan, a small burgh of some 6,000 inhabitants in Dumfriesshire, a kind of community centre was built. It consists of a white wooden structure surrounded by a pleasant


lawn and bowling green, and rejoices in the name of 'Gracie's Banking.' The building comprises a bar, a billiard room, a cinema and a restaurant which could also be used for dancing and concerts.
Not exactly the picture which we have had in other newspapers of what these places are like. Of course, the hon. Gentleman has to think of his constituents. He says:
The restaurant enjoys today the patronage of farmers who come from the surrounding districts to Annan market once a week. The management has been in the hands of one family since it started and is very efficient. The meals are good and the staff pleasant and courteous.
Quite an angelic picture—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on"]—I shall read on. In every Eden there is a serpent.
But the quality of the Carlisle beer served there.
says the hon. Gentleman,
is (shall we say) indifferent.
Of course, that is one way of saying that there is no bad beer. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman formed this conclusion himself or whether he was told.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Yes.

Mr. Ede: I am rather jealous of the quality of the Carlisle beer after the reports that reached me. This is the amazing thing. "Gracie's Banking" is one of the only two public houses in the Gretna area which do not take Carlisle beer. It takes Tennents beer. I am speaking, I am glad to say, in a condition of privilege and therefore as I am not mentioning Tennents maliciously, I think I am protected. But the hon. Gentleman was writing an article in the public Press deriding the beer, because he thought it was State beer, which it does not happen to be.
There was another statement by the hon. Gentleman He said:
At Annan an ex-Service men's Club was started after the war. It had to conform in its hours of opening with the State pubs and to close at 9.0 p.m. although in the neighbouring bur h of Dumfries, not under State control, where the closing time for public houses is also 9.0 p.m., the British Legion and other clubs are permitted to remain open until 10.0 p.m. In addition when it asked for an extension for a special occasion, the State Management came in and sold its own beer, in bottles only at 2d. more than the ordinary price to cover its expenses.

I am bound to say that to an Englishman that seemed to be quite wrong. I am the president of a working men's club where we have extensions, and when the Commissioner of Police grants us an extension we carry on with our own arrangement. But the law in Scotland is apparently different. A club cannot get an extension. If it applies for an extension it has to go to what is called a "certified holder" which I understand is, in English, a licensee, to get him to carry on after the permitted hours under the sort of arrangements which were made. Of course, that sounds terrifying to English ears. But in fact the arrangements made, including the charge, were the ordinary arrangements that are made whether by the State Management Board or by a private licensee in such cases.
I notice that the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) complained in the Sunday Press that there were no pianos in Carlisle. Let me assure him that if he went there he would find that there are pianos, and if he would oblige with a tenor solo from one of his inimitable works he would find that his entertainment would be greatly enjoyed. Now we come to dominoes. Dominoes are provided, but as in any other well regulated public house, if the persons in charge notice gambling going on they stop the game. Far be it from me, as head of the Metropolitan Police, to suggest that they should do anything else.
With regard to darts, well, darts is a matter of controversy inside the houses themselves. There are some people there who do not like darts and say so. There are others who do like them and say so. In fact, in one place in Scotland where darts are openly used it is said that there is very little demand for the game. I think that that is a great pity, because it is not merely a game requiring great physical skill, but it is the one way I know of teaching the higher mathematics to the proletariat. When I think of the school records of some of these people who work out those subtraction sums so quickly I am amazed at the value of this practical instruction.
All these suggestions that in some way or another the provision of facilities in this area is deficient as compared with the rest of the country would be disproved by a visit there. I went there first 14 years ago when, if anyone had asked me


which was the most unlikely office for me to fill, I should have said that of Home Secretary. I formed an opinion then of the very highest with regard to the hotels in Carlisle. I have been back since, but I deprecate what I saw then because, quite obviously, when the governor is about one expects the place to be at its best.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Did the right hon. Gentleman try the beer?

Mr. Ede: No, I did not try the beer but I took an expert with me.

Mr. Tiffany: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Ede: I would venture to say that if one took the three hotels at Silloth on the sea coast of the Solway Firth, Skinverness, Queens, and Solway, for the ordinary man they are both better, more commodious and cheaper than anything in the holiday resorts of the south and east of England.
The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) had a Question down addressed to me today which unfortunately was not reached. He asked me about the quality and the price of the Carlisle beer. The average gravity of the beer brewed in Carlisle in the year ending 31st March, 1948, was 1031.87 degrees, and the average gravity of the beer charged for duty in Great Britain for the same period was 1032.81. This difference of gravity represented a difference of beer duty of seven shillings a barrel. That is to say, we paid seven shillings less because of the slight difference in specific gravity. The average selling price of Carlisle beer was 12.32d. per pint, and of the beer in Great Britain generally 13.63d. per pint, a difference of 31s. 5d. a barrel. Beer for beer, it is supplied in Carlisle at 24s. 5d. a barrel less than the average throughout the country. That only confirms what is proved by the activities of the Co-operative Club Brewery in County Durham.

Colonel Dower: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving the answer which it was impossible to give at Question Time. I would put the matter impartially. I have got some Carlisle State Brewery beer in the Lobby. [Laughter.] I am not joking.

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to compare that beer with any decent beer brewed by a good firm, I can assure him that he will find there is no question which is the best.

Mr. Grierson: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to carry beer from Carlisle and then to find that it is in the same condition as it is when sold in that city?

Mr. Ede: I do not want to delay the House much longer. One of the objections raised is that one can get only State beer in the State public houses. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth will not say that, because the ordinary proprietary brands can be obtained, and if there is any other brand for which there is a reasonable economic demand, it will be supplied. But the best test of all is this. Of the 12 clubs in Carlisle, who are quite free to buy what draught beer they like, only one of them buys other than State beer.
We are dealing here with a difficult problem which in the past has caused the utmost bitterness in the controversies that it has aroused. I believe that the appropriate way to deal with the laying out of whole new towns is to ensure that the licences shall be so planned and brought into existence—that is a second and most important thing—as to ensure that the best facilities that are required shall be available. It has been said that this is nationalisation of the drink trade. It is clear from the figures I have given that that really is so wild an exaggeration that not even the brewers can believe it. If we leave the initiative to the trade itself to decide who shall have a particular licence, where it shall be situated, how many licences shall go to one firm and how many to another. we shall make the task of properly organising restaurant and drinking facilities in these areas very difficult indeed.
I believe that the proposal that we have put before the House is justified. The State management scheme received from the Royal Commission on Licensing the highest commendation. They suggested that when an opportunity occurred a further and extended experiment should take place. I believe that we shall never have a better opportunity with more justification for trying that further and more extended experiment than now. and I commend the Bill to the House.

4.35 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and add:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which extends State ownership of the the liquor and catering trades to new towns and undefined districts adjacent to them, and thereby deprives residents in those areas of their freedom of choice, ousts the jurisdiction of licensing justices, and limits the powers of new towns corporations in the planning and management of their areas.
I wish to concentrate the attention of the House on Part I of the Bill. Parts II and III deal with what are in comparison trimmings—some suggestions in my view unnecessary and some pedestrian tidying up of the licensing law. I may have an opportunity to deal with those matters later, but I shall leave them for the moment. In our view, Part I is not justified by licensing history, by recorded results or by public demand. It mounts an attack from Whitehall on one of the last bastions of local control—the licensing justices—and it seeks to deprive a large section of the people of this country of what should be their inalienable heritage, the right of choosing their own draught beer. In this it will inevitably fail.
The Bill has the essential characteristics of a mule. It is without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity. As one would have expected, the right hon. Gentleman has put forward the perennial excuse of Mr. Easy's servant girl, that this unwanted child is a very little one. I should like the House to consider with me for a short time the alleged diminutiveness of this unwanted infant. The Home Secretary has said that he is not asking for fresh powers. He was careful, as a skilful advocate of his calibre would be, not to indicate how extensive were the powers that he had got already. It is not only a question under Clause 1 of the power to sell and supply liquor. As he is well aware, under the Second Schedule he has the power to run hotels and tea-shops, the power to brew and the power to go in for the manufacture of soft drinks. Under Clause 4 he has the right to acquire any licensed premises or any premises with the sale of liquor attached, and the right to acquire any land for licensed premises.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Well, these are existing powers that for some 30-odd years have been confined, but I

am not extending them far." Let us have a look at that statement. First, he can extend them to the new towns. It is true that there are only some eight in England and four in Scotland in being, or in the course of being brought into being, at the moment. But it is understood, if the reports and prognostications have any truth, that that number will be extended to at least 40, and it may be 50.
That is the suggestion. That means, at an inside figure of 60,000, something between two and three million people who are affected, because there are undefined adjacent areas which the right hon. Gentleman can, of course, take to himself. He sought to ride off by saying that the local brewers had asked for a protective ring, but protective rings would not suffice the right hon. Gentleman, who has only to extend his Act and take in any of these districts which he likes. But, of course, it does not stop there. He asks for further powers. If we get two new towns, or, perhaps, more than two and even a group of new towns, the right hon. Gentleman then claims the right to serve all the area between them. When we consider the area round Stevenage, Welwyn, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead and Harlow, it would give the right hon. Gentleman in Hertfordshire an area up to 400 square miles which he can take for himself. There are other new towns where the same thing can be done. It is absurd and disingenuous of the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House and say that he is not making any serious extension in this matter. His baby may be illegitimate, but it is lusty, in many senses of the word.
Obviously, what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking is to get the powers in postion by which public ownership and State management are to be imposed step by step, and the first essential steps are to be imposed careless of the wishes of the people and without any due consideration of all the consequences of that extension or of the effect on the taxpayer. What is ensured is that, in these areas, the potential of future competition will be swept away and the hand of the State left alone.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his closing sentences, made a reference to what had happened in the past, and, for the first time in the numerous and to me happy occasions when he and I have faced each other across these Boxes on


many different Measures, I have not had the pleasure of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman the mandate on which he rests his authority for this. Not a word in "Let Us Face The Future," not a word in the King's Speech. It has not even been before a Labour Party Conference, nor have they got instructions from the Trades Union Congress, as they had in the case of the Transport Bill. In fact, so far as we know and can find out, the Labour Party's policy remains that of local option which was declared in 1918 and has never been departed from hitherto.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in a short passage, almost as he began to resume his seat, the question of the Licensing Commission of 1931, and he tried to get a little support from that. I do not say that he misquoted, but he quoted in his own free words what the Commission said. They said:
We think it desirable that public ownership should be applied elsewhere in circumstances which will submit the system to a further test, both in a social and a financial sense.
There has been no such test, and this is not a test. This is the application of a gamble to these areas, and what the right hon. Gentleman was careful to omit was that paragraph 420 of that Report, only two further on from the one he quoted, says:
We do not reject the possibility of other schemes"—
what other schemes?—
providing for the further divorcement of the undertaking from State control.
That is the rather poor support which the right hon. Gentleman can get from the Royal Commission, but if he were more venturesome and were to go across the Border and look at the Scottish Licensing Commission, he will get, not only no support, but a complete frontal attack, because they said in their Report:
Apart from the official witnesses, the evidence laid before us was almost unanimous in condemnation of the system of State management.
That was the Scottish Licensing Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to the fact that I had the honour to introduce into this House, during the illness of the Lord President, the Licensing Planning Bill of 1945, and what I would point out to him is that, in that Bill, knowing its genesis,

he will acquit me of any connection with what he referred to this afternoon and which took place two years after our consideration of that Bill.
In that Measure, we did find plans and machinery for dealing with the problem of distribution and the introduction of licensed premises in areas which were not new towns, but areas which were tragically new in their surroundings and conditions because of the activities of the enemy. There, we approached it in the way which we on this side of the House consider to be the right and proper way. We asked who were the local bodies who could help in dealing with this problem, and there were obviously two—the licensing justices themselves and the local authorities, who are charged with the care and governance of the people in their areas. They could combine and come together in the committees that we established to deal with this problem in a way which would produce the best result.
That refers not only to ourselves, as the Lord President would be the first to admit; we owed our inspiration to the Morris Committee, which went into this question, and on whose Report we based our Bill. I did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Morris Committee. For one thing, it was some 13 years after the Commission to which he referred, and the right hon. Gentleman has no urge to be up to date. Further than that, in paragraph 146 of their Report, the Committee drew attention to social trends in public house development and referred to the provision of improved premises, increased indoor and outdoor amenities and food. Further, they went on to say, and this again is the kernel of our case:
Progress in all these directions is not, we feel, consistent with the establishment of stereotyped standards and features of a set pattern.
I quite agree, and I should not for a moment suggest that the speech in which I introduced the Licensing Planning Bill could compare in sonorous eloquence or palpitating periods with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but what I do say in all seriousness is that it was based, not only on truly democratic principles, but on the equally important principles of local government in this country, which is being attacked every day that this Government is in power.
We need not stop there. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is aware that, not in 1931, but in 1946, there was a Committee on New Towns, which dealt with licensing in three paragraphs of its Report. They laid down the conditions and type of place of refreshment which they thought desirable, but not for one moment did they make any suggestion that these should be run by the State, and not for one moment did the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues in the New Towns Act make that suggestion either.
The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with Carlisle, and I shall deal with Carlisle, but it is only right that the people in this country who have to consider the matter should have the facts before them. The Carlisle experiment was undertaken in order to deal with a special problem, namely, drunkenness among people who were specially imported into that area. That reason has long since entirely disappeared in the existing districts. No such reason exists—nor would the right hon. Gentleman allege for one moment that it does exist—in the new towns, or is likely to exist. The decrease of drunkenness in this country is one of the things of which we can be most proud. In 1913, there were 18,000 convictions; in 1919, there were 90,000; in 1939 there were 45,000, and in 1947 there were 25,000. That is a record reflecting great credit on the people of this country. Whatever else can be said, the suggestion that the origin of the Carlisle experiment has any application now is entirely wrong. Let us take the credit for the qualities of our people which they have demonstrated in this field.
If that reason does not exist, then we have to look for some other evidence of need or demand. There has been no demand for this Bill; there is no demand either in the areas of the new towns, or by the people who are likely to go to the new towns. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there has been remarkably little consultation with those whose advice might have been valuable before this Bill was brought in. There is no demand or popularity among the inhabitants of Carlisle for this system. I saw in the Press a statement by the chairman of one of the development corporations of the new towns in which he said that they had not been officially consulted before this

matter was introduced. There has been no mention of it or discussion on it, and no one's opinion has been sought on the alternative schemes which have been discussed for years among social reformers for introducing municipal "pubs" in which the desires of, say, the development corporation, or of somebody else, might be given effect. I grant that the Bill has had a tepid welcome from certain temperance and religious bodies, but only a most tepid welcome. Some have said that this matter is very evenly balanced, and others that, on the whole, the balance comes down on the side of the Bill. That, I think, is a fair summary of the reception given to the suggestion. Therefore, if we take the whole field, there is no evidence of demand.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of what he has been saying, whether the Opposition would be content with a policy of municipalisation of public houses?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did not say that. I thought I had indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that the policy for which I stand is the application of the principles which he and I put together in the Licensing Planning Act, 1945. I did not say "municipalisation," but I did say that one matter which has been discussed for years among social reformers has been whether, in a new area, the local authority should have the right to compete—not to have a monopoly. 1 think that was obvious to everyone but the right hon. Gentleman, who has the sinister wish to catch me, but has failed to do so. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I always know that when he interrupts me, my speech is getting under someone's skin. Let me come back to Carlisle.

Mr. Fairhurst: On the point made by the Lord President, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, for example, if there were a public demand for a municipal "pub." the party opposite would then agree?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have no objection to a municipal "pub." I will give the view for which I stand, and which I am perfectly prepared to justify anywhere. If in a new town the corporation said, "All right, Messrs. A and B are


coming, but we should like to show how we could do it ourselves,' I would have no objection to their having the power to compete, but I should have very strong objections to their having a local monopoly.
Still dealing with the question of Carlisle, there is, first of all, the illustration which I chose with regard to draught beer. The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that one can get other bottled beer, but he knows that does not meet the requirements of the ordinary man. In any other place, if one does not like the beer at one house, one can get it at another. That is something which cannot be done in Carlisle, and that is a very serious limitation in the ordinary man's life. The independent tenant who exists in a high proportion over the rest of the country is eliminated. The spirit of comradeship which exists between the licensee and the customer largely disappears. However good the buildings are, there is a standardisation which affects amenities and friendliness. In Carlisle the houses are gloomy and lack a welcoming atmosphere. Lavatory accommodation is a good thing in itself, but when tiled lavatorial style architecture is extended to the public rooms, I think it takes away from the friendliness of the house.
With regard to amenities, we say that there is a definite discouragement of games. With regard to darts, the right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that was so. My information is that pianos are also discouraged in a number of houses. The most interesting thing is the puny efforts that have been made with regard to food. In 1945, the takings for food were only five per cent., and in 1947 in only 24 State-managed houses were there any signs, not only of meals but of snacks. In 131 no food at all could be obtained. If the ordinary brewer were to run his business in that way, what bench of licensing justices would tolerate it?
The right hon. Gentleman may like sitting down when he has his drink, but the ordinary person may, occasionally, want to stand at the bar. He does not want to be told when standing at the bar that he must either sit down or get out. For heaven's sake let the right hon. Gentleman be human in this matter. I know that all these considerations are not important political facts, but they are

important pieces of human nature and human conduct in the ordinary affairs of life, and that is what we are standing for here.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned clubs. He said there were 12 of them. One must have been started a short time ago, because he knows as well as I do that until recently there were 11 clubs in Carlisle with a membership of over 11,000—twice the average size of working men's clubs, and three times the average size of the clubs of the Association of Conservative Clubs. Of course, the clubs can only start if the right hon. Gentleman says they may. In every aspect of this matter there is remote Whitehall control, bureaucratic and inhuman, and that is what we resent being applied in other districts in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman might have some excuse if Carlisle had done particularly well with regard to the problem of drunkenness. I have said that that problem has largely gone, but Carlisle cannot show any improved position, because, taking the period from the institution of this experiment, in the first year 1917–18 Carlisle moved up from the 83rd position out of the 85 county boroughs to the 73rd position; but the interesting thing is that out of these 85 county boroughs, in 1921 it was 69th, in 1933 it was 67th, and in 1937 it was also 67th and over the 22 pre-war years its position was 60th in a list of 85—threequarters down the list. That does not say much for the general conditions of supervision. In 1947, again, Carlisle was in the second half of the towns with a population of between 40,000 and 80,000. It was in the lower and worse half. The right hon. Gentleman cannot point—and, in fairness to him, he did not seek to point—to any improvement in general conditions arising from State management.
Then we come to the question of local control. The right hon. Gentleman said that licensing justices had not got the power of initiation. That, of course, is strictly true legally, but as he and everyone else know, there is constant intercourse and suggestions are constantly made between go-ahead licensing benches and those who are going to apply. The answer to the example he gave of somebody applying for a badly sited house would be that the person would not get


that house; he would be told to put his house on a better site and to apply again. That is what actually happens, and everyone who has experience of these matters knows that it happens.
The right hon. Gentleman, however, is not confined to that. In this problem he has got the licensing justices, the local authorities as they come into being, the development corporations of the new towns; he has got every organ of initiation here. He has all the machinery for doing this on a local basis. Will not the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord President of the Council get it out of their heads that a thing is only good if it is run from Whitehall? It is the genius of England that things are most excellent when local affairs are locally managed. I do commend that to them.
On the other points the right hon. Gentleman was most fair. He made no attack on the general improvement of conditions of licensed premises in this country, and I do not think anyone who can look back, as most of us can, could say that after the first world war there had not been a great and welcome improvement in the condition of licensed premises. The main improvements have been in ventilation, furnishing and amenities of all kinds. This has been done without losing the cheerful and friendly atmosphere which has been the glory of the English inn. In addition to that, in many parts of the country—and this is far from being a special point produced for this occasion—we have seen the initiation of social, cultural and other activities which have centred in the inn in the village or the neighbourhood.
There is no difficulty here. There is no question of capital resources or of experience not being available. There is a record of co-operation and of improvement, and we say that those who have shown that ability to improve the position should be allowed to have the opportunity of continuing so to do. We ask ourselves—and, believe me, this has been one of the great political puzzles of the post-war period—why the Government have introduced this Bill. What is the purpose of the Bill? As I pointed out—and the House generally agreed with me—drunkenness has steadily decreased throughout the country. In many places the public house is now frequented by those who would not have gone into it

even in the years when I was a boy. It continues to play a large and effective part in the life of many communities and localities. That being the position, when we see, for no apparent reason, the forcing on of State ownership and State management in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is the thin edge of the wedge for nationalisation coming by stages in the way which I have pointed out.
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I say quite clearly that the reactions of the ordinary man to this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman's speech remind me irresistibly of these lines of Chesterton:

"The new world's wisest did surround
Me, and it pains me to record
I did not think their views profound,
Or their conclusions well assured.
The simple life I can't afford
Besides, I do not like the grub
I want a mash and sausage 'scored'—
Will someone take me to a pub?"

Conscious as I am that that delectable and still possible course cannot be pursued until the end of this Debate, it is in answer to that spirit, which I believe is widespread throughout the country, and not through any misunderstanding of the right hon. Gentleman but because we understand the right hon. Gentleman only too well, that I ask the House to support my Amendment and to vote against the Bill.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Until I heard the Home Secretary's speech, I wondered what was the origin of this Bill. There was no mention of it in the King's Speech, there was no hint of it at the General Election, there has been no public discussion that I know of about the licensing law, yet suddenly this Bill is tabled and comes up for Second Reading today. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out quite clearly that no Home Secretary ever touches the licensing laws unless he cannot avoid doing so. The history of the relationship of the State to the control of the drink trade has never been better than it is today, or more peaceful. Further, the general level of temperance has never been higher than it is today.
I agree with what the Minister seeks to do by Part III of the Bill, which deals with bottle parties, but he does not need a Bill at this time to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman said that the bottle


party was an evil, that justices agreed, and we all admit that, but I would remind the House that it is an evil which is confined to a small area in London. Has the right hon. Gentleman had conversations with temperance interests, with justices of the peace and local authorities? If so, he did not mention any of them. The only consultation he mentioned was that arising from a letter in December, 1946, from the brewers, which resulted in a deputation, first, to his Department and then to himself. The only suggestion comes from the brewers, who say that the existing licensing laws cannot apply to the new towns. The present law has been the most satisfactory of any form of law applying to the drink trade.
I would remind the House that control of the drink trade is much older than Parliament itself. The relationship of Parliament to it has varied a great deal, but the interest of temperance in regard to public houses is a very modern one indeed. For instance, drunkenness was made a statutory offence for the first time in the 17th century. The preamble to an Act passed by Henry VII, in the 15th century, sets out the reason for that Act. It is very much the same reason as was given in the case of the Carlisle experiment. That Act says that young men of that period were spending their time, not in drinking, but in playing various games instead of making themselves proficient in archery. They were not making themselves proficient to defend their country and so, justices, by that Act, were ordered to reduce the numbers of inns and ale-houses. That was not done, however, in the interests of temperance.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the same thing applies to the Carlisle experiment. It was the inflow of population in 1916 into Carlisle, and the rapid increase in drunkenness which caused interference with the manufacture of munitions, that compelled the Government of the day to take action. Surely it is the first duty of the State to see that its life is preserved, and to take any steps that are necessary, particularly in war time, for self-preservation. One of the difficulties is that the deterioration which takes place in the level of living in war time is reflected in the deterioration which takes place in the level of thought. It is suggested that the expedients which

have been found necessary in war time are thought to be good now, and that they should be applied in time of peace. There could be no greater fallacy. The Minister, in justifying the Bill, said he must either apply the existing law, amend the 1910 Act or propose State control.

Mr. Ede: I said that there was a deputation about licensing planning provisions.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Those three courses were proposed to the right hon. Gentleman by the brewers.

Mr. Ede: I said that they were the three alternatives that I put in front of the deputation which came to see me after what had emerged from the deputation to the officials of my Department.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I do not wish to misrepresent the argument. There were three courses open to the right hon. Gentleman after seeing the deputation. I have sought to make it clear why the existing law should be preserved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) rightly stressed the importance of local opinion and control rather than centralised control. The Home Secretary stressed heavily that he would be advised by an advisory committee which was representative of all the interests within the area. How will that committee work? No better answer can be given than the answer provided by the Minister, that for 13 years before he took office, the Advisory Committee in Carlisle were without a chairman. What guarantee will there be that when he quits office they will still have a chairman? Why should the right hon. Gentleman lightly transfer to such a committee the powers of the local authority.
Let me put another point which is important. Whether we agree or not, a large body of opinion in the country regards the drink trade as an evil trade. I am not saying whether I agree or not; I am making a statement of fact. When people take that view, are they to be coerced into taking part in a trade which they abhor? Quite apart from the temperance point of view, an important factor is involved with regard to the relationship of the State to the individual. Whether we agree with an


opinion or not, it is one of the bulwarks of this country that there should be such opinions, that moral conduct is an important part of life. We cannot lightly dismiss them. We may disagree with them, but the State has no right at any point to take over the responsibilities of those people and to say "We don't mind what your views are; we can ride roughshod over them."

Mr. Fairhurst: Does the hon. and learned Member agree that certain sections of the brewing interests are privileged to take over the supply of beer in the new towns?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The Bill allows the brewers into the new towns. One of the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, in answer to an hon. Member, was that the beer supplied to Carlisle was supplied by private firms and that it had not been State beer. Far from it. It was beer supplied by a private company. So it will be in the new towns—or is the right hon. Gentleman going to have all completely tied houses in the new towns?

Mr. Fairhurst: Are they not tied now?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am not defending the tied house, but at any rate those who do not wish to have responsibility in it, are not affected by it. They will be affected in the new towns if all the houses are tied.

Mr. Fairhurst: My point was that if certain brewery interests have a full monopoly in the new towns, as I have heard suggested here today, then we shall have only one kind of drink.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I quite agree, but there is another view about it. Inns and ale-houses do not exist merely for drinking purposes. That is only a part of their purpose. They exist for leisure and for the supplying of food. Important common law rights rest upon the inn-keeper. If he does not make proper provision, he can lose his licence, upon a proper application and in proper circumstances before the licensing sessions. When the right hon. Gentleman is the licensee, how are any of his managers to he brought before the court?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Surely the licence will belong to the person who is actually managing the public house for the State.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Oh, will it? Can we bring the Home Secretary before a bench in Carlisle?

Mr. Walkden: Does not the hon. and learned Member know that although the brewer grants facilities for the conduct of the house, the licence attaches to the tenant or owner, and to nobody else?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I am not talking of the brewers or of the licensees. I am talking of the licences in places like Carlisle and the new towns, when the Home Secretary becomes the licensee. Where the right hon. Gentleman becomes the licensee, there will be no redress at all. If there is no proper provision of food or accommodation in an inn, there will be no opportunity of dealing with the matter at all. The right hon. Gentleman will be the sole authority as to where a licence shall be placed, and how many licences there shall be. He can, if he is not the present right hon. Gentleman, do that without reference to his advisory committee, without even summoning them and by leaving them without a chairman in a completely highhanded way.
The new towns will be built up from the populations of existing towns. We shall take, roughly, so many thousands out of London, say, and transfer them to a new town. The first proposal put forward was that we could then diminish the licences in London and transfer them to the new towns. That is the old fallacy of every planned State that I can think of. It reminded me of More's "Utopia," in which every town would have a population of 6,000 people, every family would not have more than 16 children, and no family would have fewer than 10 children. What do you do with the family with fewer than 10 children? You transfer to them the surplus from the families that have more than 16 children. In the same way it was proposed to transfer these licences. That was the proposal. It is always the proposal that the State must put forward when it wants absolute power. Why nationalise this industry?

Mr. Ede: I put forward no such proposal as the hon. and learned Member has suggested. I rejected it.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I agree. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman accepted that one, but he has accepted


another form of it which gives him absolute power to determine what licences there shall be, where they shall be, how they shall be controlled and in what circumstances they shall be suppressed. He will be sole arbiter. The people of the locality will no longer matter. In Carlisle, one cannot object to a public house, however well managed it may be, being next door to the post office, as one can in another place. There are serious objections to Part I of the Bill. Parts II and III I would gladly support, but because of Part I, I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Grierson: I am pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate. May I be permitted first to congratulate the Home Secretary upon bringing in the Bill for the extension of State management to the new towns. I represent a city that has had a State management scheme in operation for the last 32 years. I have lived in that city all my life, and I have had an opportunity of seeing the scheme working since its inception. I suggest that 32 years is sufficient time to be able to judge the merits and demerits of a scheme. I am confident that it is an exceedingly good scheme and is doing a real public service. Naturally, one expects opposition to a Bill of this character. We had the same experience when a Bill was presented in 1915. The brewers were up in arms and did their utmost to suppress the Bill.
There has been a good deal of propaganda since it was known that the Bill was to be presented. Representatives of the Press visited the city of Carlisle and gave their impressions through the various national newspapers. I do not consider that to be a fair test. It is impossible to judge a scheme of such magnitude in a few hours. My constituency has been very much in the limelight during the past few weeks. I have been approached by various Members of Parliament who informed me that they had been receiving petitions and numerous letters of protest against the scheme. That is rather singular as 1 personally have not received one letter. I think it is customary in these days that when our constituents feel a grievance they write to their M.Ps. On this occasion, apparently, I have steered clear.
Carlisle, that ancient Border city, which for centuries stood guard over the main western route between England and Scotland, has in my day become a symbol of social progress and enlightened reform. It is a key city, well managed and more important still, the gateway to Scotland. To all who desire the welfare of the nation it provides also the key to the solution of a problem which has baffled legislators and reformers for years. Yet it was not until the 20th century that the Government accepted their responsibility and decided to put into operation the State scheme at Carlisle.
During the winter months of 1915–16 Carlisle experienced a great invasion. This time the invasion was peaceful, but it caused profound disturbance to the city and its neighbourhood. At that time 15,000 highly-paid manual workers, for whom it was impossible to find housing accommodation or social amenities, were drafted into the city to build a huge munition factory near Gretna. Following this large influx of workers there was an acute outbreak of drunkenness and disorder in what had hitherto been a quiet cathedral city. As a result of this excess of drunkenness, and in response to appeals from the local authorities and other local bodies, the Central Board of Control in 1916 took the only way out of an impossible situation by acquiring the liquor business in the city and the surrounding districts. They took over five breweries and 321 licences. This included the City of Carlisle and 320 square miles of Northern Cumberland. This had to be done to prevent any interference with the production of war materials and the organisation of the transport to win the war.
The success of the scheme was acknowledged in 1921 when the Central Board of Control was abolished and Parliament decided to place the responsibility in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the change-over there was a drastic reduction in the number of licences in Carlisle. At that time there were 116 licences in operation. These were reduced to 58. There was a reduction of off-sales from 100 to 13 We had the suppression of all the grocers' licences and none of those exists today.
What was the result of this drastic step? Despite what has been said this


afternoon I want to emphasise that whereas the number of convictions for drunkenness in 1908 in the city was 200, and in 1916 rose to 950, in 1932 it dropped to 45. Today it is somewhere in the region of about 20 and, in the main, most of those offenders are strangers who come to the city. During the periods which I have quoted as showing a reduction in the number of convictions, the beer was not weak; it was at its normal strength.
In 1916 and subsequently the State paid £700,000 for the breweries, licences and goodwill in the district. Within 11 years, by March, 1927, the whole of this sum, plus interest at the current market rates, had been paid off out of the proceeds of the trade. I understand that the State today is in possession of property worth at least £1 million. The profits for the last ten years in Carlisle alone have been over £1½ million. For the last 21 years the net profit has been £2,211,000. The reserves set aside at the moment for further development amount to £270,000. This has all occurred despite the fact that there is no advertising for the sale of liquor in the city of Carlisle. The local council are particularly interested in the results of the State undertaking and last week a minute was presented to the city council suggesting that, after all the capital expenditure has been redeemed, there ought to be handed back to the local authorities for the area 33⅓ per cent. of the profits accumulating from the sale of the drink.
We have heard a lot of criticism about State control, but I venture to tell the House this afternoon that, generally speaking, State inns are models of public house construction. They are beautifully designed and particularly well furnished. They have large, ventilated rooms where the people can have a drink in comfort. There are opportunities for recreation—bowling greens, billiards and dominoes, if the public desire them. The bowling greens are very attractive and well patronised. Last year 16,000 people took advantage of the bowling greens despite the fact that we experienced a very wet summer.
In my view, Carlisle bitter beer is good, clear and supplied in the best hygienic conditions. I would challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for

Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) by stating that in my view the Carlisle beer is equal, at the price, to any beer in the country. By the way, I was not the expert witness who travelled round the pubs with the Home Secretary when he visited the city of Carlisle. In all State inns one can get popular brands of bottled beer, Bass, Worthington, Guinness and all the rest. One can get proprietary brands of whisky at reasonable prices. Despite what has been said, the atmosphere is friendly and cheerful. We meet in Carlisle as we do in other places, to discuss football, the pools I suppose, racing and all the topics of the day. There is no comparison between the inns of to-day and those of years ago.
It is interesting to compare some of the prices in the State-controlled public houses with those one has to pay in the City of London and elsewhere. Carlisle pale ale in bottles at the bar is 10½d. Bass bottled beer in the bar is 1s. 1½d. Worthington is 1s. 1½d., Guinness 1s. 1d., and whisky 3s. a glass or 2s. 9d. in the bar. That is an amazing achievement. We are proud of what we have been able to do through our State management scheme.
I have read with interest the criticisms in the Press about standing in the bar. When the State-controlled "pubs" were built they were designed on the short bar method generally—the new type—giving more accommodation for people to sit, so that they could enjoy their drinks in comfort. There will, undoubtedly, when the time is opportune, be some improvements in that system. However, to try to create the impression in the minds of the general public that we are compelled to take a seat, that we are not allowed to stand at the bar, that we are absolutely in a strait jacket, is sheer nonsense.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Grierson: It is not very often that I trouble the House with speeches, and I think I have the right to complete my speech on this occasion. I was very pleased indeed when I heard the Home Secretary say today that he was deciding to give local representation on the Central Board. Who knows better than the local people the requirements of the general public? I should like to see the Advisory Committee given more power. I believe their power at the present moment has certain limitations.
The Carlisle scheme is not all that could be desired, but I hope now that we have a Labour Government, they will endeavour during the coming years to make the necessary improvements. Any criticisms that have been made ought to reflect on past Tory Governments because they were responsible for any limitations in the scheme during the 32 years it has been in operation. I do not wish to delay the House any longer, because I know other hon. Members are very anxious to speak, but I sincerely hope that what I have said will influence those who are doubtful about supporting the Bill.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I feel some difficulty in following the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) because I cannot myself claim any expert knowledge on the only subject to which he saw fit to refer, that is to say, the city of Carlisle. He has informed us that he was not the expert witness who accompanied the Home Secretary to Carlisle, but I am sure he will forgive me if I say he has, at any rate, one characteristic of the expert witness, in that he stuck remarkably closely to his brief. I am sure Baedecker will have to look to his laurels if speeches made to this House are to be so exhaustively eulogistic of the qualities and amenities of the places hon. Members have the honour to represent. However, had the hon. Member been able, as I was, to command an unobstructed view of the expression on the face of his hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) as the hon. Member for Carlisle catalogued those various choice liquors and the prices at which they could be bought, he would, I think, have cut his catalogue short for the sake of his hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I thought the hon. Member for West Ealing had a point to make. It was only, apparently, half a point in this particular case.
We who sit for constituencies in Hertfordshire do not have the glory of being in the gateway to Scotland, as in Carlisle. However, we have the compensation that we do not have the peculiar antecedents, if I may so express it, which caused the introduction of State management in Carlisle after the last war. [HON. MEMBERS: "During the

first world war."] The use of the word "last" is, perhaps, to be avoided lest we should assume the mantle of prophecy.
However, so far as we are concerned in Hertfordshire, we are not convinced, as to the bulk of public opinion, that it would be well for us to follow the example of Carlisle, however attractively set out by the hon. Member. I think that this Bill has come as an unwelcome surprise even to some of those who support the Government in Hertfordshire and on the county borders of Essex. Hertfordshire is vitally affected by Part I of this Bill. Let me mention here that the noble Lady the Member for the Hemel Hempstead Division of the county (Viscountess Davidson) is not able to seek to catch your eye today, sir, but is strongly opposed, in the interests of the people of Hemel Hempstead, to this Measure.
The hon. Member for Carlisle spoke of letters. I can assure the House that I have received a vast number of letters and petitions protesting against this Bill from my constituents. It is not on every subject that the mere counting of heads is the right criterion of political action, but in this case, where public enjoyment is concerned, I should have thought that the weight of public opinion, as communicated to its Parliamentary representatives, was one entitled to particular attention and respect. I have not received one letter supporting the Bill. Therefore, I am not exposed, as hon. Members sometimes are, to the difficulty of balancing the conflicting views of constituents on a matter of vital local interest; because in this case there is this mass of opposition to the Bill expressed on the one hand, and not a solitary letter or personal communication asking me to support it, on the other.
There are those who say that the whole of the licensed trade and the taking of refreshment at licensed premises is wrong and harmful and contrary to the public interest. But while we may not agree with that view—for myself, I certainly do not—it is, at any rate, a logical view; but I cannot see any logic in the attitude underlying the Government's point of view—that a thing which exists for public enjoyment should be run in a way other than that which the majority of the public want. That is surely a supremely illogical view.
It has been pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fife) that there is neither mandate for this Measure nor valid precedent. The Home Secretary appears to date the conception of this idea to a period after the New Towns Act. I have a very close and lively recollection of our deliberations on what was then the New Towns Bill. Certainly this proposition was not canvassed at that time, and I suggest to the House that the right approach to this problem would have been by the adaptation of the principle of the Licensing Planning Act, referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, as a proper combination of functions on the part of the licensing justices and the local planning authorities. There has certainly been no noticeable surge of public opinion, which could be thought to have driven the Secretary of State towards the solution which he has taken in this Bill.

Mr. Scollan: We have repeatedly had reference to public opinion. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he has any means of knowing that the public opinion of 20 million adults in the country is against the Bill, in view of the fact that the trade itself has tried to work up an agitation which has been a complete flop?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member takes the argument a little wide. He will appreciate now, if perhaps he did not appreciate before, that I am speaking more particularly in regard to a part of the country which is vitally affected by the provisions of this Bill. The Secretary of State has pointed out that this is a Bill which does not affect immediately the whole country. I am speaking as the representative of one of the areas which is already intimately affected, and I can give the hon. Member chapter and verse for the state of public opinion within the area affected. If he does not take it from me, I suggest that he asks his hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) as to what is the state of public opinion in that part of the country.
I say that it would be wrong to give a State monopoly in the new towns even if they were built on virgin sites, unless there was a strong public demand for that course. Still more would I say that it is

wrong to do so when the new towns are themselves sited where there are already existing and, in many cases, ancient communities. It is most wrong of all to use the opportunity for introducing State monopoly into new towns as a lever to introduce that system over a wider and undefined area. That is the worst course of all, and that is the course which is being followed in this Bill.
I want to draw attention more particularly to Clause 2 of the Bill which has been referred to in the Debate, but not, as yet, in detail. Subsection (2) states:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or expedient, to ensure effective State management in a town, that any area adjacent to the new town should be treated as part of the new town for the purposes of this Part of this Act, he may by order made in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act direct that the area shall be so treated.
In my submission, that Subsection is highly objectionable in its content and in its phrasing. Every word in it is so drafted as to give wide and unrestricted power to the Secretary of State. In the very first line it says,
Where it appears to the Secretary of State…;
not even whether the Secretary of State is satisfied, which is the phrase normally found in Statutes. It goes on to say: necessary or expedient…
and that is a very wide term. "Adjacent," again, is completely undefined. The same criticism applies to the following Subsection in regard to the linking up of new towns by reason of their proximity. Again, that is a completely undefined phrase. The effect of these two Subsections is, in my view, to put these powers beyond effective challenge of any sort. I am not totally without experience of these matters, and I would say, if I were confronted with these Subsections as part of an Act of Parliament, that one was virtually powerless in the way of challenge—

Mr. Rankin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the Second Schedule provision is made so that local opinion shall be taken into account and a decision come to only after a local inquiry has been held?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is quite true that the Second Schedule provides for a public local inquiry for the testing of


public opinion, but what the hon. Gentleman must understand is that the value of the public local inquiry is conditioned by the wording of the Subsection which calls it into being. The purpose for which a public local inquiry is held is conditioned by the words of the Subsection, and the only purpose of the public local inquiry in this case is to inform the mind of the Minister, so as to enable him to see whether it appears to him that it is expedient that this thing should be done. That being so, the value of the public local inquiry—and here again I speak not entirely without experience of these matters—is to my mind very largely shut out. Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to it, I would draw his attention to page 25, line 10, where he will see that the jurisdiction of the courts is ousted by the Second Schedule, except where an aggrieved person has a right under paragraph 4 (2), but the ordinary rules of quashing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting into very great detail in referring to the paragraphs in the Schedule. I think that he ought to be more general in his remarks as what he has now been saying seems more like a Committee point. Perhaps he would keep to the general line of the Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That was not part of the speech which I intended to make, but it will be within the recollection of the House that I was challenged on this point and, therefore, I thought it right to comment upon it. I will certainly not pursue the matter, but I shall be very glad to explain to the hon. Member in private, if he is still in any doubt, the effect of this Schedule on the Clause.
Under the powers of the Clause the twin new towns of Hatfield and Welwyn and the new towns of Stevenage, Harlow and Hemel Hempstead can presumably be linked up, and thus, with the adjacent areas which can also be included, the whole of that side of Hertfordshire and the Essex border can easily be brought within the system of State monopoly under this objectionable Clause. That would have the effect of enforcing State monopoly not only on new towns but on some of the old communities already existing.
I intended to say something on the subject of Clause 4, which deals with compulsory purchase, because the Secretary of State rather suggested that his powers under this Bill were not, after all, so very wide. I would suggest that the powers of compulsory acquisition given under Clause 4 are very wide indeed. Hon. Members may have noticed that the powers of compulsory acquisition to be exercised by the Secretary of State are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946. That is a procedure by which the Secretary of State will be both the acquiring authority and the confirming authority. I say that that procedure is arbitrary and wrong; it is a case of
I'll be judge, I'll be jury'
Said cunning old Fury
'I'll try all the cause and condemn you to death'.
It is an arbitrary power which the Secretary of State has taken, and it is wrong to give arbitrary power in a Bill affecting this very wide area.
My last comments concern the position of existing tenants. I must protest against the provisions of Clause 7 (2), which give no right of equivalent reinstatement to present tenants and licensees who will be dispossessed under this Bill. Many of them are likely to be my own constituents, and I protest most strongly against the provisions of that Subsection.
Finally, on the whole concept of the Bill, I ask: Why should new towns be considered the right place for the carrying out of every form of experiment and new idea? Why should they be treated in that way? We are not against the project of new towns, but I venture to say that if new towns are to have a strong and healthy existence they must be deeply rooted in the practices of the countryside in which they lie. Now, a lot of sentiment is talked about the place of the inn and the tavern in our British national life. But it reflects an admitted truth. Great tribute has been paid to the British inn in passages that are far too familiar to the House for quotation, by authors as diverse in period and in taste as Dr. Johnson, Dickens, Professor Trevelyan, and more recently the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), who was good enough to send me a copy of his book on this theme.
The new towns should be given the chance to grow up on a more traditional basis, and should not be made the trying-out ground for every form of experiment, including this most unwanted experiment of State monopoly in liquor. This is a surprise Bill and an unwanted Bill, and if the Secretary of State proceeds, as he presumably will, to the Division Lobbies this evening, he will no doubt win a victory there. But all the signs, at any rate from one most affected part of the country, are that it is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory so far as the Government are concerned. When they have won their victory in the Division Lobbies they may well echo the words of Pyrrhus:
A few more such victories andΩwe are utterly undone.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Leslie (Seclaefield): I am sure the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) for his very informed speech and the excellent outline of the success of the Carlisle scheme. The figures he quoted for drunkenness were truly remarkable. Imagine dropping from the high figure of 900 cases in 1916 to 20 last year. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) asserted that these State houses would deprive people of the right to choose what beer they liked. The Home Secretary has already informed the House that that is not the case.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I was careful to say "draught" beer. I did not deny what the Home Secretary had said, that people can get, I think, Worthington and Guinness; but I said that in Carlisle they cannot get any variety of draught beer. That was my point.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misinformed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, I am not.

Mr. Ede: Well, may I say, then, that I am better informed? It is possible to get draught Bass in some of the houses in Carlisle. Everybody knows, however, that the variety of draught beer depends upon cellarage accommodation.

Mr. Leslie: The statement that people could get what beer they liked was subsequently confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. I understand

that draught beer can be obtained if there if a sufficient demand for it. But take the position of the tied houses owned by the brewers. What choice of beer is there in a tied house? People have to accept the beer brewed by the owner of the tied house.

Air-Commodore Harvey: They can go elsewhere.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that, in Manchester, if a man does not like the beer in one house he can go a few yards further on and get another brew; and that within a quarter of a mile he can get half-a-dozen different types of beer? He cannot do that in Carlisle.

Mr. Leslie: Oh, yes, he can get what beer he wants in Carlisle. That has already been shown by the hon. Member for Carlisle. But apart from that, I am now talking of tied houses. In a tied house a man can get only the beer brewed by the owner of that tied house.

Colonel Dower: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and do so in the most friendly spirit. For years and years I have lived seven miles from Carlisle, and I know that it is not easy to get other beer. I like to get Younger's beer whenever I can, because it is a very good beer, and a fine example of private enterprise.

Mr. Leslie: I am prepared to accept the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who should know better than any other hon. Member. In my constituency it is proposed to create a new town, so naturally I am interested in this Bill. I want to see up-to-date, well planned refreshment houses for the comfort of customers, such as have been provided under the Carlisle scheme. Doubtless the brewers had their eyes on these new towns, as I think the Home Secretary has proved, because they offer facilities for exploitation. I want to see these new towns free from the tied houses of the brewers.
The Government ought, I think, to have gone much further and considered taking over the breweries. Think of the enormous profits made by the brewers, as shown last year. And let hon. Members bear in mind that those profits were not shared by the managers of the tied houses. I know that the managers of tied houses have been very badly paid; they


have had imposed upon them conditions that had to be dealt with recently by the Wages Board. In most cases the managers of tied houses have to be helped by their wives; allowances for cleaning, for instance, have been insufficient to meet present day costs; and if a manager is dismissed for any reason, not only has he lost his job, but he has been deprived of both house and home. These managers will certainly be very much better off under a scheme similar to that of Carlisle.
The agitation against this Bill is somewhat bogus. I have had no fewer than 197 letters of protest and several petitions, but it is obvious that the writers of these letters have been misled and have not the slightest knowledge about the provisions of the Bill. They imagine that all pubs, hotels and inns are to be nationalised, and that dominoes and darts will be probibited. I find no reference to darts and dominoes in the Bill. These people base their protests merely on what they have heard about Carlisle, but we have been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that darts and dominoes are allowed in Carlisle, and that even bowling greens and billiard tables are provided. How many public houses in this country provide bowling greens and billiard tables?
The quality of the beer has already been mentioned, and the Home Secretary has informed us that working men's clubs in the Carlisle district prefer the State beer; it cannot be too bad if it is preferred to the beer of other brewers. I know it has been the attitude of brewers to oppose any system which seeks to limit their powers of exploitation. I well remember when the Gothenburg system was adopted in many towns and villages in Scotland, which enabled cottage hospitals, libraries and bowling greens to be provided out of the profits, instead of the profits going into the coffers of the brewers. Instead of the profits going into the coffers of the brewers, they will go towards assisting the revenues of the country under this Bill, which in the long run will help to bring about the reduction of taxation, which we all desire to see.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: The eloquent speeches that have been made on both sides and the cogent arguments adduced, have left rather a confused impression on an untutored

mind such as mine. Nevertheless there are one or two observations I should like to cast into the arena on my own account. Reversing the order of the Home Secretary and improving on his method, I should like to begin with Part I of the Bill and to say nothing at all about Parts II and III—that is the improvement on his method. I should like to start, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), with the essential preliminary question that anyone must ask who comes to give consideration to this Measure. In reviewing a book, an exercise in which I sometimes engage, it is necessary at the beginning to ask whether there is any good reason why the book should have been written at all, and in a good many cases there is not.
We now have to ask ourselves whether there is any good reason why this Measure should have been introduced, or, in the phraseology which was so familiar a few years ago, we need to ask the Home Secretary: Is your Measure really necessary, and, if so, why? It is certainly not necessary in the interests of sobriety. It is not necessary to reduce drunkenness or excessive drunkenness for the simple reason that, as the right hon. and learned Member has said, the vice of drunkenness is disappearing so rapidly that it has almost altogether vanished. I suppose that I am one of a minority in this House who remembers the days of 1915, when the munition workers all over the country were going to Mr. Lloyd George, who was then Minister of Munitions, to tell him that their output was being reduced intolerably on account of the drunkenness which everywhere prevailed. As a younger journalist in those days than I am now I remember going down to Dumbarton Road on Clydeside and to Scotswood on Tyneside to see the conditions created, both industrially and socially, by the manifestly excessive drinking that was taking place. Fortunately, most of that is a thing of the past.
My right hon. and learned Friend quoted Chesterton at some length, and I will quote him very briefly:
The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road.
I am afraid that, in the new towns and elsewhere, we shall have to be satisfied with straight roads for the future, because the rolling English drunkards are, as Members on the Government Front


Bench would put it, in short supply today. This welcome change in social habits seems to me actually to justify relaxation of some of the existing restrictions, and certainly some relaxation in the matter of hours, not at the later part of the day, but at the earlier part. If, like so many Members, I am doing the family shopping at 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m., I regard it as an intolerable hardship to have to wait until 10.30 a.m. to buy a bottle of innocuous cider. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider abolishing these restrictions in the case of retail sales, or, if that creates an invidious distinction, let both the public houses and the retail shops open at 9 a.m.
But if all this is admitted, as I think it must be, that is not the last word on the subject. We all agree that whatever the extent of the excessive drinking that remains, drunkenness is an evil that must be regulated; everyone is agreed on the need for some regulation in the case of what is a potentially dangerous trade. Consumption of intoxicating liquor is not like the consumption of milk and bread, an excess of which will do no one much harm. An excess of intoxicating liquor can do great harm indeed, and a small excess may be very dangerous if a man is going to drive a car immediately after. There is no doubt that many of the motor accidents reported are not due to drunkenness, but are due to just a little too much indulgence, that dulls the faculties and slows down reactions. That is the reason why regulations in regard to intoxicating liquor must err rather on the severe than on the lenient side. I would not for a moment advocate anything like prohibition, and I am utterly opposed to local option, which seems to me an intolerable invasion of the rights of minorities. I should always oppose that, by whichever side it is proposed.
But when we are asked to look at the Carlisle experiment and consider whether there is a case for extending it to these new towns, that is a proposition which deserves our most serious consideration. The Carlisle experiment, in its day—and I can remember when it started—represented an immense advance in the standard of public houses of those days. There has been a great and welcome improvement in the standard of public houses

all over the country, as the right hon. Gentleman said, since the days of the first great war—in other words, since the days when the Carlisle experiment was first initiated. When licensed houses were taken over by the State in Carlisle, they immediately made a profit, and out of those profits everyone of them, I believe it is true to say, was rebuilt in a vastly improved form. It is all to the credit of many brewers in different parts of the country that they followed suit, but the greater credit belongs to the pioneer experiment inaugurated by State management in Carlisle.
I unhesitatingly support this Measure, because it embodies the principle of disinterested management, which seems to me an essential principle that lies at the root of all reform of the licensing trade. It is most undesirable that people should be paid commission for the sale of drink, the sale of an excessive amount of which might do so much harm. I know it can be said, I have seen it in print, that the managers of tied houses or elsewhere do not push liquor on their customers. If that is the case, why are they paid a commission on what is sold unless it is to induce them to sell as much liquor to their customers as they can?
The largest group of hotels in this country, Trust Houses, follows the admirable principle that the manager of each house is paid a commission on refreshment sales and the accommodation he lets, but no commission at all on the liquor he sells. That, I believe, is the principle of Carlisle, and it seems to me a thoroughly sound principle The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson), I thought, made an admirable point when he reminded the House that by far the greater part of the history of the Carlisle experiment fell in the time when Conservative Governments were in office. During all those years when Conservative Home Secretaries were managing the Carlisle experiment, nobody criticised it. So far as I know, there was never any suggestion to hand those houses back to the brewers, though it would have been perfectly easy to do that. No Government of whatever colour thought of it.
I should like to say this about the brewers. I was struck by the fact that the Home Secretary kept referring throughout to his conversation with the


Brewers' Society and not with the licensed victuallers. If a man who owned his licensed house was going to lose his trade through the movement of population and said, "This is going to be a bad thing for me; I am going to lose my livelihood, and, therefore I should be considered for a place in the new town," that is a proposition which would deserve some consideration and sympathy But when the brewers say they are going to lose a bunch of tied houses in London and ask for a bunch of tied houses in a new town instead, I suggest that that is not a proposition which should be received with any great tenderness or sympathy in this House. The prime business of brewers is to brew beer. If they start buying up free houses right and left, and turning them into places where a man cannot get the liquor he wants, but only what the owner brews, there is, of course, nothing iniquitous about that, but it certainly does not give them much claim on the tenderness of the House.
I have listened with great respect to all the arguments on this side of the House, but it seems to me that nothing has been said which should stop the Government extending the Carlisle experiment to the new towns. It is a very limited experiment. It is not proposed to turn out people who are already in possession. The Government are entering on what is practically virgin soil. They are planning the whole of the new towns, as indeed they must, because that is the very essence of them, and it is only rational that at the same time they should plan the places in those towns where alcoholic refreshment is served.
I quite realise that that is not the only method which might be applied. Many hon. Members have read with much admiration the booklet which has been prepared by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) and a coadjutor, who, I am sure he would be the first to admit, is more talented than himself. They have described a very interesting experiment which was made in Welwyn Garden City, where a firm of enlightened brewers were called in and given practically all the licensed houses in the area. But it is specifically explained why that was done. It was because the local authority did not feel itself competent and had not the necessary experience to run public houses. That argument does not

apply in this case. A great deal of valuable experience has been accumulated in Carlisle. Carlisle may not be better now than many other towns. That is because they are rising to the standard of Carlisle not because Carlisle has degenerated. If in visiting a public school, you see an old-fashioned swimming-bath, the reason probably is that that school was a pioneer in such things. They had one when no one else had one, and they held on to it because they could not afford, or did not actually need, a new one
I hope and trust that the experiment at Carlisle will not be instituted as it stands in the new towns. I hope the Home Secretary will improve on it a great deal. My right hon. Friend needs to be imaginative and bold. I hope he will give a choice of drinks. I do not see why he should not have draught beers of different sorts. In that he would have a great advantage over the tied houses. I have no doubt in a few years, when the new towns are built and this system is introduced, a great many Members of this House who are criticising the proposal today will be praising it. I earnestly hope that this Bill will get the Second Reading it thoroughly deserves, and will if necessary be amended in Committee, and that some hon. Members who are threatening to abstain from voting will, after all, cast their votes behind the Measure.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: In rising to make a few comments on the contents of this Bill, I wish to say that I do not claim to speak for any of the temperance organisations in this country, although I know that many of the members of those organisations will agree with what I am about to say. When I took part in the Third Reading discussion on the Civic Restaurants Bill I said that it was probable that I would come to a decision on the question of the sale and control of liquor in quite a different way from some of my temperance friends. A decision on that basis now confronts me I have no difficulty in making it, because it has come in an unexpected way which justifies itself. I trust that when this Bill is passed, the Government of the day will see that no encouragement shall be given to the system whereby many sites in our towns are disfigured by collections of public houses, which dominate conspicuously the chief street corner


positions. We do not want that sort of thing in the new towns.
I, therefore, congratulate the Government on their prevision and prescience in relation to these towns. It would, however, be a mistake to regard this Bill as designed to promote temperance or increase sobriety. There is no compulsion in that direction. It is a Bill to improve the machinery for the control of the distribution, location and government of intoxicating drink selling facilities in existing State areas as well as in new towns, designated and actual. I am glad of this early taking of powers to improve and protect the amenities of these towns so that in the future, the threatening and insidious dangers of a great social evil will not imperil the influence of those new towns in ruralising "England's green and pleasant land."
On two occasions I have visited Carlisle for the express purpose of seeing and learning something of its liquor trade control. I do not say that I was satisfied with all I saw and heard. Perhaps it was because I had not successfully suppressed my teetotal objections, for the purposes of investigation, to the use of and therefore to the facilities for the consumption of strong drink. I should have liked to find a much greater interest in the scheme by the inhabitants of the city, but that failure I learnt—I trust the Home Secretary will take note of it—was in large measure due to the lack of some measure of local control in the management of the scheme and its financial disbursements.
On the other hand, the general opinion of representative men, temperance organisations and religious bodies was a decided preference for their system of control over pre-State management days. Those who were aged enough, readily said that they would regard a return to pre-State management methods as a moral mistake, while the middle-aged and younger people, themselves frequenters of public houses, stated that in their opinion the public houses in Carlisle were equal in amenities, and in many cases in other directions superior, to such other places in other parts of the country. I ask myself after what I have heard this afternoon wherein lies the approval of State control in Carlisle. It has reduced the number of premises where strong drink

is sold, from 321 to 178. There has been no outcry against that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It has not reduced the amount of liquor sold.

Sir R. Young: I am talking about the "pubs" in the first instance, and I regard every public house as a temptation. There has been no outcry about that reduction in the number of public houses, and I therefore assume that those which have gone were unnecessary and redundant. A similar result has occurred in the other districts under State control. While this has been happening, land, premises, space and manpower have been released for more useful purposes in the city.
Another point is that the profit motive has been almost eliminated. I put it no higher than that, but that is true. The management and the managers of these shops are not encouraged as a result of their employment to entertain financial considerations as a motive to secure a full house and large turnovers in the sale of intoxicating liquor. Proof of that can be found in the annual report recently issued. The net profits are small in amount. Proof of that can also be found in the annual report. No one objects to that, least of all those who are saddled with the duties and responsibilities of control. That is due in large measure to the fact that the fixed salaries paid to the employees have no connection with and do not carry with them any pecuniary interest in the sale of strong drink.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) must give credit to Carlisle as a reforming agency for the country as a whole. It was the Carlisle scheme with its new and reconstructed premises, which led the brewers and the licensed victuallers to begin the improvement of their places of business in appearance, comfort and sanitation. As a teetotaller, I am not against that. I remember the dark, dismal, dirty, filthy dens of old which disgraced some of our towns and cities and were a menace to the general well-being of the residential community living around. In my estimation the amenities of all places where people eat, drink, sleep, work and play should be of the highest.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that the Government have no mandate for this Bill. Surely that is rather a fatuous objection coming from that side of the House. If the


Government had a mandate, would the Bill be all right? We know from experience in this Parliament that the Opposition have consistently, and even viciously, opposed all the proposals of the Government for which there was a mandate. Let us be careful about this talk of mandates. Again I am old enough to remember the mandates in the political contests of long ago. The mandates of the past claimed by Liberal and Tory statesmen were seldom more than oral promises on one or two of the principal political questions, and certainly never as many as would cover the legal life of a Parliament. So I think it is about time we dropped talking about mandates as limiting the things which this Government should be permitted to do, even if they had no other ground for proceeding. The Government are on perfectly sure ground. The Royal Commission, as has been pointed out, recommended that the Government should experiment further with the system of State management in order to prove its usefulness and value to the community.
Again, it has been said that the Carlisle system, judged by statistics of convictions for insobriety, has been a failure. I am not impressed with that argument. The number of convictions for insobriety is not an infallible guide to the sobriety of one place compared with another. On the contrary, if the convictions for drunkenness are great, it probably indicates the vigilance of the police authorities and the desire of the magistrates to uphold the respectibility and prestige of their city or town. In any case, all magistrates are not alike in their handling of drink delinquents. If all magistrates were alike in their leniency or severity as regards the penalties imposed. then statistics in that direction might become comparable.
I have looked at the Amendments on the Order Paper and I confess to some surprise at the one sponsored by the Liberal Party for the rejection of the Bill. During my young manhood I was an enthusiastic Radical. I thought the fullest control of the liquor trade was inherent in the programme of reforms of the Liberal Party. I thought it was a temperance party and that if ever again it was in a position to influence large sections of the voting public, its work in that direction might accomplish much.

Mr. Lipson: My Liberal Friends are not here, so perhaps I may say that one of the reasons why they are opposing this Bill is because in their view it is not a Measure likely to add to temperance. I hope the hon. Member will agree that it is the representatives of the Liberal Party who are best able to decide whether a Bill is in accordance with Liberal principles or not.

Sir R. Young: I am not impressed with that view. I look back on their past policies and programmes and remember how they used to advocate vigorously the control of the vested interests of the liquor trade. I remember that they were the outstanding protagonists for the principle of local option, and I think I have a right to ask, have they discarded that principle now after what we have heard tonight? Of course, it may be that they have all become prohibitionists and do not wish any reform in that direction.

Colonel Dower: rose—

Sir R. Young: The hon. and gallant Member is not the Liberal Party.

Mr. Rankin: Where is the Liberal Party? It has disappeared.

Sir R. Young: I have also looked at the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby. Taken as a whole, it is a condemnation of all that has been done in Carlisle, but there is no need to burke the fact that the main objection of the party opposite is to the suggestion of the extension of State ownership. That, and that only, accounts for their objection. Hon. Members opposite know very well that their own party, in spite of much declamation in that direction, when in power in the past have never abrogated anything in relation to nationalisation, municipalisation or State control which had been passed by previous Parliaments. In fact, they themselves, unwittingly perhaps, restricted on one occasion private enterprise in a profit-making industry. Ultimately they repented of it evidently, left it alone, refused to proceed further. I am referring to their banking reform in respect of the municipal bank in the city of Birmingham.
The Conservative Amendment is tantamount to saying that the Carlisle system is a great failure, but that is not so. On


the contrary, it is a quiet success. If it were not so, we would have had vehement protests and petitions against it in constant succession. We would have had the temperance organisations emphatically condemning the system. We would have had the local authorities seeking for repeal of the system. We would have had the religious bodies denouncing it as a continuing menace to the moral life of the community, and an advertised encouragement to young people to indulge in the consumption of strong liquor. Above all, we would have had the police authorities clamantly demanding, in the interests of law and order, that we should return to the general law of the land.
The objectors to State control of the liquor trade have been remarkably quiescent in Carlisle, Gretna and the Cromarty areas. Some of my hon. Friends will probably put down Amendments to the Bill. We trust that serious consideration will be given to them on their merits, for their express purpose is to bring the communities of the new towns into closer contact with the working of the schemes when these towns are established.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), apparently, thinks there has never been any protest whatsoever against State management in any of the State management areas. I happen to represent a constituency part of which comes under State management and I can assure him that I very frequently get complaints. Furthermore, on many occasions in the past Bills have been introduced by private Members for the abolition of State management, but they have not got through simply because the State management was limited to certain areas and it was difficult to arouse sufficient enthusiasm.
The present question is mainly one of the extension of those areas; that is the main purpose of the Bill. But it has not been put to the people and will not be put to the inhabitants concerned. The people in State management districts have never been consulted as to whether State management should continue. There has never been any consultation of that kind

in my constituency. Its effect, in Scotland at any rate, is that the County Licensing Court, consisting of justices of the peace and elected county representatives, have no say regarding the distribution, numbers, location and so forth of public houses. Even the sheriff, who in Scotland has authority over club registrations, is not the authority for the licensing of clubs in State management districts. That authority is usurped by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland; usurped not of his own seeking, however, because he has been given the power by Act of Parliament. That is no reason why he should be given it elsewhere.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. Perhaps he is going to reply. If so, I should like to ask him whether the provisions of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, will apply to the new towns which are to be placed under State management. That Act gives the inhabitants of a district the right to say whether or not there shall be licences in their area. In State management districts, of course, there are not licences but their equivalent. Will the inhabitants of these areas have that power or will they not?
I should like to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning said on the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill. He said:
It"—
meaning a new town—
must be self-contained and self-governing; it must not be run as a distant colony from a remote control 20 miles or so distant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1085.
Twenty miles or so distant! Glasgow, which runs Annan, is 100 miles away from that district and is a good deal more than 20 miles from Glen Rothes. But the Advisory Council of which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was speaking is not even in Glasgow. I presume that when it sits it sits in London. I do not know. It may sit in Carlisle. Even if it is in Carlisle, it is a very long way indeed from Invergordon or from any of the new towns that are to be founded. If it sits in London it is some 600 miles away from the Cromarty area with which it deals.
I was a little surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Newton about local option. His speech was characterised by the lack of any mention of it. He will know very well that local option does exist in Scotland and that the Scottish Temperance Alliance does not take the same view as he does. It has taken objection to the Bill in these terms:
That, apart from the principle of State management of the liquor traffic, which in itself is repugnant to many citizens, the Bill, as framed, is objectionable in respect to its complete disregard of democratic rightsΩ
Then it goes on to talk of the rights of the public to object to applications for licences.

Sir R. Young: Does not that reference to democratic rights mean the control of the people over the number of public houses, of which I approve?

Mr. Macpherson: Well, how is that to be effected? The hon. Gentleman did not explain how that would be achieved under the system of State management. Undoubtedly there are people who consider that drink is an evil and drinking a vice. Surely, it cannot be right for the State to peddle evil or to set up establishments for the encouragement of vice. I should explain I am not myself a teetotaller, as has already emerged in the Debate, but on the rare occasions when I visit public houses I like to find that congenial atmosphere which is generally described as "a home from home."
Apart from the consideration that it is not right for the State to encourage vice, the question will also arise whether vice will, in fact, be mitigated. We have heard a great deal about Carlisle. Particularly significant in the speeches made from the other side is the lack of comparison between Carlisle and other places. There is no evidence whatsoever that the record as regards drunkenness in Carlisle is any better than elsewhere. The hon. Member for Newton does not consider that relevant. Admittedly, there are differences in application of the law, but this fact must be taken alongside the others. As to improvements in public houses, those in Annan, with, possibly the one exception of "Gracie's Banking," which the right hon. Gentleman has visited, are not op to the general standard of public houses in Carlisle, and are certainly no better than those elsewhere.
The community centre which has already been mentioned—"Gracie's Banking"—would without question be very much better if it were controlled by the people in the district instead of from a great distance away. Several things have been said about the Advisory Committee but I am certain that the Committee itself would be the first to admit that it is not in the closest of touch. Indeed, not having had a chairman for many years, the Carlisle Advisory Committee may not have been in touch at all. From the information at my disposal, it seems that they are not encouraged to be in touch because their advice is so rarely listened to.

Mr. Ede: Yesterday I saw the chairman of the Carlisle Committee. He has been on it since its inception and he assured me that there was no case where their advice had ever been rejected.

Mr. Macpherson: It might be pertinent to ask how many times they had tendered advice. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has a very great deal to do with it. Some reference has been made in the Debate to the findings of Royal Commissions. The Scottish Royal Commission, in their concise and sensible Report in 1931, recommended not only that State management should not be continued but that it should be abolished. I would remind the House that they said:
Admittedly the existence of these two small and widely separated areas"—
Gretna and Cromarty—
is an excrescence on the general licensing system of the country and the only effective plea for their continuance was based on the desire to carry on in these districts an interesting social experiment.
Then the Report says:
We have come without difficulty to the conclusion that this plea has not been substantiated.
It goes on:
We accordingly recommend that. with a view to bringing the Gretna and Cromarty State management districts into line with the ordinary system of licensing, the experiments in those districts should he discontinued
That was a unanimous Report, whereas the Amulree Report was signed by only 11 out of 21 members of the Commission. Even though it had a bare majority, what did it, in fact, recommend? Did it recommend, for example, that there should be an experiment in


new towns, or suburbs, or new building areas? Not at all; indeed, quite the contrary. It recommended a further test of public ownership in an area in which there were already far too many licences. This Bill proposes its extension to new towns where there are few, if any, as yet. The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to use the argument of a further experiment until the very tail end of his speech. Obviously he did not place very great reliance on it, but that was the view of the Amulree Commission, which also recommended that:
the management should be further removed from State control";
and suggested that there should be an "independent board of management." It went on to suggest:
We do not reject the possibility of other schemes providing for further divorcement of the undertaking from State control.
Yet for the new towns we have exactly the same set-up as has already been condemned unanimously in the Scottish Report and condemned in the minority reports of five Commissioners on the Amulree Commission. That deals pretty extensively with the claim that in this we are following out a recommendation of the previous Commissions.
It seems to me that there are two reasons urging the Government at present to impose this extension of State management. First, there is the famous profit motive. It is claimed by many that it is wrong to make a profit out of drink. The management, we are told, must be disinterested. But the fact is that the Government, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman in his speech today, have actually boasted of the profits which have been made in the Carlisle area. It is not a question of what sort of Government is in power. As soon as the Treasury's clutch gets on to something of this kind, it is extremely difficult to dislodge. But it should be remarked that in fact State management pays no Profits Tax, no Income Tax and, during the war, no Excess Profits Tax either. So the net profits shown by State management are nothing like what they purport to be. It may well be questioned whether the State would not get just as much revenue if the liquor industry in those areas remained in the hands of private enterprise.
The second point is that new towns certainly give a chance to apply Socialism. The customer has no say in the matter, and the elected local government has no say. The local advisory committee may have a say, but that is certainly all they get. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the new experiment would be an advantage, but, if a new experiment is made, what will it prove? It will only prove, if successful, what should happen in other new towns when this particular form of control is applied to them too. The results cannot be applied to the rest of the country where the circumstances are not equal.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: They are not intended to be.

Mr. Macpherson: Certainly it is not intended to be an experiment; but the right hon. Gentleman claimed as one of the reasons that it was going to be an experiment. We are not deceived by that. We know very well that this is the cloud the size of a man's hand. The storm will overwhelm the Government.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I oppose this Bill in its present form, not because I want to see the brewers establish a monopoly in the new towns, and not because I want to see tied houses established in the new towns. I am not perturbed by the spate of telegrams and letters which have arrived, nor impressed by arguments put up by hon. Members opposite. Indeed, some of the statements I have heard have encouraged me to rally to the support of the Home Secretary, because they are so wildly extravagant.
I am not opposed to the State entering into what is called the liquor business, which I prefer to call the management of inns, or something of that sort. I have no particular views on Carlisle. I have never been to Carlisle, and never seen these State-managed houses in operation. Only one comment I would permit myself on the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson). He referred to the large, well-ventilated rooms found in Carlisle public houses. Many of my constituents, I am afraid, prefer to do their drinking in small, smoke-filled rooms, and I have no objection to their doing so, if they wish.
I am against this Bill as it stands simply because I have heard yet no reason why there should be a State monopoly. It is the monopoly to which I object, and not to the State engaging in this form of activity. I have in my constituency Stevenage, a new town, whose establishment I support and whose progress I shall always follow with very great interest. I live in Welwyn Garden City and one of the "grouses" we hear in Welwyn Garden City is of the existing preponderance of one brewer. It is not a monopoly. There is one house of another brewery, as readers of the book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) will know. There is not a monopoly but there is a preponderance of one brewery. One can see going out of Welwyn Garden City a trek of people who apparently do not want to drink in the large well-ventilated rooms of our excellent public houses—I make no complaint against them—but who prefer to go out into the old smaller houses, where there are fewer amenities, and certainly no bowling greens, because on winter evenings a bowling green is not a great attraction.
I object not only to this monopoly which is proposed, but to the existing premises being taken over without the licensees being offered alternative premises elsewhere in the new towns. Under the New Towns Act the development corporation already have power to acquire existing premises, but they are under an obligation to offer to persons carrying on business, whose premises are taken over, alternative accommodation in the new towns. It is quite wrong, as an hon. Member has already said, that such alternative accommodation should not be provided. If I may say so in parenthesis to the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) who, if I understood him aright, argued that no interference with existing premises was intended, that most certainly it is. If Members will refer to Clause 4—

Mr. Wilson Harris: I do not remember making any reference to that matter.

Mr. Jones: In that case I misunderstood the hon. Member, and I withdraw.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the hon. Member's case be met if the managers of existing houses were appointed managers of new houses?

Mr. Jones: I think not, for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments. I would not regard the manager of a house as being in a particularly satisfactory position. I should like to see an owner or a tenant, but not a manager. If what I said was not the intention of the hon. Member, I naturally withdraw what I said.
It has been already amply proved that there is no public demand in the new towns for what is here proposed. So far as I am aware there is no public demand for it from those persons who are proposing to go to the new towns. Indeed I am somewhat apprehensive that if this proposal is put into effect—I hope it will not be—it will have the effect of deterring people from going to live in the new towns. I do not believe it will make much difference, but it will have some effect upon them.
Not only is there no public demand but there is no expert demand. I am perfectly prepared to justify an unpopular proposal if it is necessary on good sound grounds. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said at the start of the Debate, the New Towns Committee, which was specifically appointed to deal with these matters, did not regard it as necessary. Indeed it went a little further, in paragraph 205 of its final Report, which states:
It would be our wish to do anything in our power to discourage drinking as an end in itself or as an escape from the realities and responsibilities of life.
That is probably from the pen of Lord Reith. One can follow the high moral tone which is behind that observation. The Report goes on, in a remarkably enlightened way:
But we believe it ought now to be possible to treat alcoholic drinks as forms of refreshment, subject to individual tastes and particular limitations, like other forms of refreshment.
I entirely agree with that.
Again, I have not heard any opinion quoted in this Debate from development corporations or members of development corporations. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether any development corporation, either unanimously or by a majority, has represented to him that this Bill is necessary for the effective carrying out of its powers. During the passage of the New Towns Act no such


additional powers were suggested by anyone to be necessary. As the Committee stated, the running of public houses may be done in a variety of ways. We do not want standardisation in that respect. There can be tied houses in the hands of the brewers. I regard that as the least attractive of the proposals. There can be free houses. The development corporation will acquire the land in the new towns. It is enabled, under the New Towns Act, to build premises, which it can let as free houses. I deplore the disappearance of the free house from this country. It has almost disappeared and for that I think the brewers have a big responsibility, because of their buying up of these houses and toisting their own beer on the public. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is entirely their responsibility."] The public has some responsibility for allowing it. The brewers have bought up the houses and are foisting their own beer on the public. I shall seek to show in a moment that, by and large, they do not treat their licensees very well.
The third possibility is State management, to which I have already referred. It is also possible to have public ownership and public management but not. State management. There can be a form of public ownership by means of the local authority. They are all to be cleared out unless the Home Secretary consents to their establishing an inn. Co-operative societies could also establish inns unless they were forbidden to do so by the Home Secretary. If the choice were only between having the tied house in the hands of the brewers and State management, I should be greatly inclined to vote in favour of State management. But that is not the only choice There is no reason why we should not have all these methods in operation in the same place.
To turn for a moment to the question of tied houses, I should not like to see the new towns having only tied houses in them. The Royal Commission of 1931, which has been extensively quoted today, was much averse to the tie as it exists today, and was very much averse to the tie extending to anything but draught beer. The tenant of one of these houses is completely at the mercy of his landlord. He is subject to three months' notice, and if the landlord does not like him he can give him three months' notice without giving any reasons for doing so.

I have heard of unwillingness to carry out repairs. The tenant is left to do them himself, and in most cases there is no compensation. Brewers are going round and insisting on the display of this petition which has swollen the postbags of so many Members in recent weeks. The bureaucracy exercised by the brewers over their tenants is greater than anything my right hon. Friend can produce out of the immense resources of the Home Office.
It is often overlooked that the profit in this trade does not go normally to the tenant but to the brewers. If my right hon. Friend gets these powers he will be able to acquire existing premises compulsorily but he will not have compulsory powers to acquire breweries. He will be able to acquire breweries by agreement. Unless he builds his own or buys one by agreement, he will go on being supplied by existing brewers and the profits will go into their hands. To suggest, as some people do, that there is a right to drink draught beer of whatever brew one likes in tied houses is quite wrong, although it is perfectly true that in most cases one can walk down the street and get what brew one requires. I am against tied houses.
Let me examine the argument for a State monopoly. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has pointed out, the Royal Commission of 1931 was entirely directed to cutting down the number of public houses. It did not turn its mind to the situation which arises both in war-damaged areas and in new towns in regard to the proper planning of new houses. Undoubtedly it is true that some of the new towns which have been designated contain areas where there may he rather more public houses than are immediately necessary. but the development corporation has absolute powers under the New Towns Act to acquire them and offer the licensees other premises within the new town, so that that argument has no validity at all.
It is also suggested that the licensing justices, being the power to regulate new licences, have no initiative; they can merely turn down applications. That is true. It would have been an argument of some validity before the passage of the New Towns Act, and before the passage of the Town and Country Planning Act; but it is certainly not right


now. It is argued that a brewer can put down a public house anywhere he likes. He certainly cannot. He is subject to the Town and Country Planning Act in exactly the same way as anyone else, and therefore if the brewers wish to erect a public house, not only in a new town but anywhere else, not only have they to get the permission of the local authority but they also have to get a lease from the development corporation.
Supposing the situation arose where the development corporation thought there should be a public house, and there was no willingness to supply it? I cannot imagine such a situation arising, but supposing it did. Surely that is one case where the Home Secretary could come in and provide a State house. I think that a State house could quite easily operate within the new town. Let them compete on equal terms with the other houses and let the best man win. I say, therefore, that there is no case at all for State monopoly on the grounds of planning. All the powers can be achieved under existing legislation without any interference whatever.
It is also suggested that we must have State management in order to raise the standards. In the first place, the new buildings which have been erected in the last 20 years are very much better than many others which were put up before. Secondly, there is no existing complaint, so far as I am aware, in Steévenage, which is the only new town of which I have any immediate knowledge, that the existing premises are bad, or below standard, or anything of the sort. Indeed, experience has shown in the past in Carlisle and the surrounding areas that the existence of the houses with higher standards tends to bring up those in the neighbourhood. Therefore, there does not appear at this present day to be any argument on the subject of standards. It may be there was in the past, but the past has gone so far as the abuses of the drink traffic are concerned.
It is also suggested that the State-managed house can provide many more facilities for food. That may be a valid point; I am not sure that it is, but I will concede that one point to the Home Secretary. There is the suggestion of fear of competition from less high-principled houses. There, again, that seems to be answered by the argument—

Mr. Ede: That is not suggested.

Mr. Jones: I have heard the argument raised that a State monopoly is a way of avoiding competition from public houses of not such high standards. That argument appears to have no validity, and I am glad to understand from the Home Secretary that he does not put it forward or that there is any validity in it. That being so, there seems to be no reason whatever for the powers contained in the Bill to take over houses in areas adjacent to the new towns. I have a suspicious mind in these things, and I suspected the reason for the adjacent areas provision was to be able to claw in those areas which would perhaps provide more attractive amenities than the houses inside the new towns. I am glad to hear that there is no truth in that at all.
Another objection I have to this extension and the taking over of many small public houses is that the running of a pub is a job which can be done, and is done, either part-time or by men who have retired. Retired policemen and retired soldiers have found it an occupation suitable to them in their later years. Indeed, in many villages in my constituency small houses are run by men who do other work. I find no objection at all to that, and I should be very much averse to seeing the practice discontinued.
Therefore, may I put forward what I suggest should have been in this Bill, merely to deal with the question of new towns? The development corporation already has the power to plan in conjunction with the local authority and finally to hand over to the local authority. No building can be erected without the permission of the development corporation. The corporation, as the freeholder, has the power to require that the building shall be of a certain size and of a certain nature. All the details of the plan must be submitted to the development corporation. There appears to be no objection on that score to allowing the development corporation to decide.
I would go further and say that the development corporation not only can plan, but can also build the house itself, and either let it as a free house or run it through a manager if it appears that that would be the best method of dealing with it. That being so, the whole


gravamen of the case made by the Home Secretary in this Bill, that the power of State management is necessary in order to plan, appears to be without any substance at all.
Another argument against this is that, in due course, the development corporation has a duty to hand over to the local authority. I see no valid reason why a local authority should not be a ground landlord of a public house any more than it should not be the ground landlord of any other undertaking. If it is suggested that it would be wrong for the local authority to take over a house which was managed by the development corporation, then I would say that something should be done by way of setting up a local body, not a highly centralised body, but a local body to carry on the management.
I have already spoken of the need for variety in running refreshment houses of all kinds. I should like to see the tenants of houses which are built by the development corporation have security of tenure. I should like to see them have the same security which the tenant farmer enjoys today under the Agriculture Act, that is to say, he holds on to his living so long as he is efficient. That seems to be more reasonable than the three months' notice to which tenants are now subject. A further objection is—how does one deal with the licensing justices? On that I can only repeat what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby has said. Precisely the same arguments could be made against the licensing planning committee in the war-damaged areas. What is an argument in one case is an argument in the other. If it is invalid in this case, it is invalid in the war-damaged areas.
And so, reluctantly, I must say that, unless the Government will give an undertaking that during the Committee stage of this Bill they will relax on these two points that is to say, that State management shall not be a monopoly and secondly there shall be no acquisition of existing premises without alternatives being offered, I am going into the Lobby tonight against this Bill, and I hope that a number of my hon. Friends will come with me. I do not believe that this Bill is necessary for the advance of Socialism. I do not believe that it is necessary to assist in the economic recovery of this

country or in order to provide for the proper planning of new towns. Indeed, I consider that the Bill is entirely unnecessary.

7.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): It would be convenient if, at this stage, I dealt with the Scottish points which have been raised. Later the Lord President of the Council will deal with the general Debate. What has struck me about the Debate is the number of objections to this Bill which are not based on anything in the Bill. In other words, most of the objections are to matters with which the Bill does not deal. For instance, the question has been raised that this Measure will make people drink one type of beer. The Bill does not provide for that, nor does it provide for people to drink only State beer. Nor does it raise the alternative of whether these public houses should be controlled locally or from a distance. That is not the issue. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) has elaborated on the fact that he wants local control and local owner-occupiers of public houses. Those may be his ideals but they are not realities in modern society. A great number of the public houses in this country are controlled from a distance by the brewers and the big public house trusts.

Mr. Asterley Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what there is to stop a development corporation from building a new house and letting it as a free house to a tenant?

Mr. Woodburn: That is rather a different point. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the alternative is between this Bill and free houses. That is not the alternative. It is a false alternative and I suggest that if that is the basis upon which he has argued against the Bill, he should change his mind. He is under an illusion if he thinks that voting against this Bill means that free houses will be established throughout the country.

Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Mr. Woodburn: That is not the point. The hon. Gentleman did not raise it in his speech.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) raised a number of


detailed questions with reference to Annan. He argued that there is no local control, that it is done from London or Edinburgh, as the case may be, and that, somehow or other, local feeling in regard to matters affecting the public houses is not taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman does a great injustice to the local advisory committee in his own area. In each of the areas in Scotland there are local advisory committees which meet at least every two months. They are consulted on all matters of consequence affecting the district and they visit and report on each house in the district annually. They are active and useful bodies which have given a great deal of assistance. During my visit to Annan, when I think the hon. Member for Dumfries accompanied me, we met the local committee who put before us a number of considerations. Most of those have been put into effect within the limits of the present building programme.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the advisory committees feel themselves to be ineffectual?

Mr. Woodburn: They have not told us that. I think we ought to be the first to be told. I have visited them myself, and, as the hon. Gentleman may remember, not one of them made any such suggestion. I am afraid I cannot take the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter. I must take the view of the advisory committees as expressed to me. They have made no such statement.
The hon. Gentleman raised the more general question about the 1913 Temperance Act. I am willing to give a similar pledge to that given on that occasion. If a poll is taken I am willing, at a suitable time, to give that pledge and to put it into proper form so that the Temperance Act will be effective in State management districts as it is in other districts.

Mr. Rankin: I wonder if I might make that point specifically clear? Power is given to the Secretary of State to sell or supply intoxicating liquor for consumption. Is my right hon. Friend making it clear that at a later stage he will make provision to enable the Scottish local veto Act to function in the new towns?

Mr. Woodburn: I have given a pledge that it will be made effective. Whether

it will be done in the Bill or by regulation is a matter of machinery which will be considered later. On the previous occasion it was done by regulation and it may be done in that way again. So far as the local power over the licence is concerned, I give that pledge. The hon. Member for Dumfries also raised the question of profits and suggested that these State management districts did not pay any Income Tax. Curiously enough, he went on to prove that not only did they pay Income Tax but they paid it at a greater rate than any other profit-making organisation in the country. In other words, he accused the Treasury of taking all the profit. He seemed to contradict himself in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the 1931 Report. I am compelled to say that the Scottish Report advised against the continuance of State management. As in the Debate that has taken place in this House today, it is remarkable that in that Report there is a most curious alliance between those who stand for the unreasonable type of brewer and those who stand for the more extreme type of temperance. They tend to combine. It is a kind of unholy alliance where neither of them seems to be the appropriate bedfellow of the other. They combine against what seems to be a reasonable point of view about the drink trade. In the Report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we had the same unity between the extreme temperance people and those who stood for the rather free and easy licensing system—

Mr. N. Macpherson: I cannot allow that to pass. Would the right hon. Gentleman really describe the late Dr. Harry Miller as representing either of those extremities?

Mr. Woodburn: I happen to know personally a good many people connected with that Report. What I have said is correct about some of them. I knew Harry Miller very well. I could not describe him in these terms, but he certainly took the side of those who held an extreme temperance point of view.
These people again take a contradictory point of view. The hon. Gentleman put the contradiction very clearly. Almost in the same breath he advocated prohibition and then he gave another temperance point of view and said that there ought to be free democratic control. In other


words, we ought not to have any control at all over the drink trade. We are either to have a prohibition or to allow the trade to be free and easy. If that point of view were held generally, there would be no licensing laws in any part of the country. There would be unrestricted hours and people would be able to open public houses anywhere at any time of day or night. It seems to be a fantastic point of view that there should be no State regulation of the drink trade. If hon. Gentlemen do not accept that point of view—

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman misrepresenting my argument? There is all the difference in the world between laying down rules and doing the thing oneself.

Mr. Woodburn: Sometimes to do it for oneself is the only way to get the rules carried out, especially when dealing with a large and complicated system such as this. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained earlier how the whole problem had been examined and how it was found that this was the only way of dealing with the matter satisfactorily. We must deal with the question whether prohibition or the free and easy way is the right way. This bill takes the medium line which is naturally anathema to people who believe in extreme dryness or extreme wetness. Therefore, it should commend itself to the reasonable people in the House.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that last statement about reasonably dry and reasonably wet? As far as the records go, the system suggested in this Bill has by no means brought greater dryness, as we know from the sales records of intoxicating liquor.

Mr. Woodburn: That is rather a different point. I was talking about the difference between those who support the point of view of the extreme brewers and those who express the extreme temperance view. The fact that a man lives in a State management district does not mean that we should take him to be a very different type from one who lives in a non-State management district, and we take people as an average of the people who live in those areas. The question which the hon. Gentleman has raised has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Certain points have been made in Scotland which are practical points, and which I agree are worrying people. People have asked whether a grocer's delivery man can go into the new towns from shops outside, or whether they would be debarred from delivering intoxicating liquors there under this Bill. The answer is that people can order drink from any part of the country to be delivered within a new town or a State management district. That right of delivery in the existing State management district is not cut across by this Bill. Another question was whether public houses and licensed places will be taken over or closed down as a result of this Bill. The Bill itself does not close any licensed place. As hon. Members will see, it allows the status quo to continue so far as existing licences are concerned. It does, however, empower the Secretary of State to take over these places if and when he considers fit, and to take over the State management districts, but there is no suggestion in the Bill itself that that is going to be done immediately.
The question has been put whether, if the Secretary of State does take over these licensed places, they will be taken over without compensation. The position is perfectly clear. If any public houses or other licensed places are taken over, either in a new town or in a State management district, adequate compensation will be paid to the proprietors, whether they live in the places or not. In other words, even tied houses would be entitled to compensation, and the value of the premises and the goodwill would be met in that direction.
Another question that has been posed by one or two hon. Members, and especially by the hon. Member for Dumfries, is whether prohibition is the right way to temperance, and the hon. Member seemed to be taking the view of extreme temperance people in Scotland that, first of all, we should neither touch nor handle drink, and that the State should have nothing to do with it. If the hon. Gentleman says that, he poses two alternatives. Either the State should allow this drink traffic to run wild, as it did many years ago, or it should take action to do something with it. The question is whether we shall take the alternative of prohibition as advocated by his extreme temperance friends, or allow


a free run to the drink trade. We do not think that the State should exercise greater and greater control over the drink trade, but we regard this Bill as a step forward in another direction.
In the planning of new towns, we are taking steps to guide people in future to a better way of life. [Interruption.] Certainly, if anybody can picture the sort of thing which I can show hon. Members in my own constituency—the miners' houses in which people lived 50 years ago—and compare those conditions with the houses built now under a planned system, they would realise the difference that has taken place in our society in 50 years. When we are transferring great bodies of miners from the West of Scotland to the East, and building new towns, the whole purpose is to see that they do not grow up in the same haphazard way as the miners' villages grew up in Scotland in the last century, but that men and women receive an opportunity of living clean and healthy lives.
It would be quite ridiculous to plan every part of the town except the public house, and to allow anybody to build any kind of public house and to open as many as they liked. There is the further question whether, in a new town, the public houses are to fit in with the amenities of that new town. We say that, if we are to plan new towns, we obviously must plan the drinking facilities, and we propose to do that, not in a way to encourage drinking, but to encourage good living, and to see to it that, if people want to drink, they can do so in places fit for human beings.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? These new towns have to be planned, and we are all glad to hear that, but the shopping district will also be planned. Is the Government intending to own every shop? If they plan both the shops and the public houses, why are they to own the public houses and not the shops? Why do not the Government try to own everything which they have planned?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He said that the Government were endeavouring to raise the moral life of the people. Why are the Government taking

over the manufacture and control of soft drinks—non-alcoholic liquors?

Mr. Woodburn: In answer to the last question, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that, under this Bill, the Secretaries of State are taking no more powers than they had previously. Therefore, there is no extension of powers in that regard. With regard to the other point, I hope the hon. Gentleman is not pressing us to take on the job of running the shops. We are willing to consider that, but not, perhaps, at the moment. I am sorry that I cannot meet his request in that direction. We are simply confining this Bill to drink, and the Home Secretary has explained that we have had a discussion and have considered all methods of dealing with this matter, and we found that the only way of providing for the new towns was by this method of dealing with the trade.
On these grounds, I certainly hope that my hon. Friend will reconcile his temperance views, so that we may get common agreement on this Bill, in which case I am quite sure that we shall have his support in the Lobby, in spite of the desertion of his Liberal friends in front of him.

Commander Galbraith: May I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman before he sits down, because it is of great importance? Do I understand that he has some doubt whether this Bill overrides the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and has, therefore, given an undertaking that, if it does override it, he will insert a provision to ensure that this Bill does not override the local veto which the people of Scotland have today?

Mr. Woodburn: No, I do not think the Bill overrides that, any more than the previous Bill did. The fact is that the 1920 Act was a United Kingdom Measure, and the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Scottish point. In 1920, this matter was dealt with by the then Secretary of State by giving a public pledge to observe the results of any poll under the 1913 Act. That was put into the regulations, and, therefore, that pledge will, be binding upon us. What I have said is that, so far as machinery is concerned, we will have to look at it again, and that, whatever is necessary to be done, we will take steps to see that it is put into proper


form so as to give that guarantee to the people.

7.50 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his argument, but I want to say how much I appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) who is now about to leave the Chamber. I must say, with all respect, that there has been—I hope I shall be excused for using the phrase—an awful lot of nonsense talked by people who have been to Carlisle. I should think that all they saw of Carlisle was when their train stopped for a minute or two in the railway station.
I have never seen anyone so assiduous as the Home Secretary in following the terms of a Bill. That being so, I deeply regret the criticisms which I have to make. He said that he had paid two visits to Carlisle, one before the war and one quite recently with an expert beer taster. I suggest that those visits do not qualify the right hon. Gentleman, whom I admire immensely and who has certainly worked very hard on this Bill, to say what, in his opinion, is the success of the State-managed brewery in Carlisle. The main argument in favour of that particular State management scheme is that it is a financial success. It shows, I believe, a profit of 15 per cent. The second argument is that drunkenness has been reduced in Carlisle, that the supply of beer is far better under disinterested management, and that we have not the evil of tied houses.
I will deal briefly with the points put forward in favour of the scheme. There are quite a number of public houses in Carlisle. In fact, I believe there are 100 or more. I have been into most of them, although I admit that one or two may have escaped my attention. In none of those public houses have I found draught beer other than one State brewery draught beer. I thought the best thing to do was to bring some of that draught beer here. and that is what I have done. I am sorry to say that although the beer has been in this House for several hours now, only five hon. Members have approached me with the idea of sampling it. They were all Opposition Members. I can only deduce from that fact that either hon.

Members opposite are all teetotalers, following the example of the Home Secretary, or that they know how rotten the beer is. However, the beer is here, and I shall be very pleased indeed if any hon. Member would like to try it.
With regard to the point about tied houses, several hon. Members opposite have said that they dislike monopolies. They suggested that we had a monopoly under private enterprise. I think that is a very fair and proper argument to bring forward. I hold no brief for the brewers, and understand nothing about brewing. If there were only one pub in the village and that was owned by a brewery, it would seem to me that that was a monopoly. If I wanted some other beer in that village I should not be able to get it. Therefore, I should be tied to whatever beer was being sold there. I have been told that there was no monopoly in a particular beer in the towns, and that one could get other draught beer by going a short distance down the street. I understand that Stratford-on-Avon was the only exception. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I have made one or two inquiries, and I am assured that in Stratford there is almost a private brewers' monopoly.
I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) who is a very good friend of mine. I find that nearly everyone in Carlisle dislikes the beer sold there. I would point out to the Home Secretary that it is not the gravity which makes good beer.

Mr. Walkden: They use hops in Carlisle; that is important.

Colonel Dower: I am told that the art of brewing is more important than the amount of gravity. As we as a country have not embraced teetotalism—I have a great respect for the Liberal Party and for one or two hon. Members opposite who are in favour of teetotalism—I think we ought to be permitted to drink the best beer in the most happy conditions, provided it does not lead to any kind of abuse. If it does, then the Home Secretary, whom I respect so much, should come down upon it like a ton of coals. Whether one goes north, south, east or west one finds very little drunkenness these days.
Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman. whose Bill I am afraid will


get its Second Reading, will do his best to make State public houses cheerful places. It is all very well to say that the landlord should not be paid a proportion of the money received for the drink he forces down the throats of unwilling clients, but the publican wants to attract as many people as possible to his own house. There is something. in competition, but if hon. Members opposite decide that competition is bad, and that we are not to have it, then I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to try to make the State public houses homely.
I do not see why the manager of a State-managed public house should not become "mine host" even though he is a civil servant. Why should he not say to his customers, "Good evening, gentlemen, come in. You have done a hard day's work; have some good beer." I am told that managers are forbidden to have drinks with the customers under any circumstances. If the State is going to become more and more powerful—and we cannot stop it—then I would beseech the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to make it as humane and as cheerful as he possibly can. I have nothing else to say.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Lavers: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) other than to assure him that I have been to Carlisle and that I got out of the railway carriage when I was there. History tells us that the late Mr. Lloyd George said that every Government that has ever touched alcohol has burnt its fingers in its lurid flame. After listening to some of the speeches today, it seems to me that history is repeating itself. So much has been written and spoken in the past about the results of this State experiment that it would appear that there is nothing more to be said about it. Unfortunately, it appears to me that many hon. Members who have spoken have done so with preconceived ideas, and have been concerned with trying to prove their prejudices rather than trying to get at the truth.
I fully recognise the difficulty of preventing one's view from colouring one's impressions. I have approached the question from a definite standpoint. For many years I held the view that so long

as the manufacture and sale of drink was allowed in this country, such drink should be pure and wholesome and should be produced, sold and consumed under the best and most comfortable circumstances possible. I have also believed that since the trade must of necessity, be in the nature of a monopoly—and this is important—the profits accruing ought to go to the public good and not to the benefit of a few who have been privileged by the decisions of licensing benches composed of magistrates who are by no means representative of people's wishes. Further, I have believed that public houses should, in the real sense of the word, provide refreshments of all kinds and should not be places merely for the consumption of intoxicants.
As this Bill will affect a substantial part of County Durham, and as County Durham, Northumberland and similar parts of the country are strictly club minded and have set a very high standard in the provision of drink and accommodation, I thought that it was very desirable that I should go to Carlisle again to see what had gone wrong with this State management experiment. I was also led to do that as the result of a statement which I read in the "Daily Mail" by Mr. John Stewart Eagles, who for seven years was the general manager of the State-run Carlisle brewery and public houses. He gave his views to a gentleman whose name is Mr. Charles Graves. He said:
I make no attack on the Carlisle management. It has built many public houses of outstanding architectural merit and it has laid down the finest bowling greens.
He offered other criticism, of course.
I was delighted to go to Carlisle. Despite such criticism as I propose to offer in a constructive way, I want to say that the opinion of the former manager of the scheme was not justified. I am expressing a very substantial body of opinion in Carlisle when I say that they very much resent a former servant of the State criticising the scheme, when for seven years he had the opportunity to improve some of the things which he mentions in that newspaper statement, but miserably failed to do so. The residential hotels in Carlisle are second to none in the country. The food is good and the tariff is better than in a


lot of places of an equivalent type in this city. As to the first-class restaurant in Carlisle, I say without hesitation that there is nothing to equal it either in this city or in any other part of the country. I say that, having enjoyed three meals there quite recently. They were a credit to the scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the names of the places where he had those meals?

Mr. Lavers: The "Citadel" was one; I went to the "Citadel" twice. There was another one, but I could not give its name. I visited one place where the workers could obtain most wholesome food and take it away to their homes, and that was much appreciated by the people in that part of the world. Some of the public houses were old and some were new. We must remember that it is 11 years since it was possible to build or make any alteration to the Carlisle scheme, but I am satisfied from what I have seen and heard that once the austerity in labour and material comes to an end, a vast amount of leeway will be made up.
The architecture of the houses was exceedingly good. Probably there has been far too much put into the houses from that point of view, if that is possible. However well-intentioned the architect may have been in many houses, there was a complete lack of certain amenities such as darts, dominoes and other games. I understand that efforts will be made to improve the position in that respect. I also noticed a complete absence of arrangements for music and singing, although I believe this is permitted on the outskirts. I must tell the Home Secretary that if Durham is provided with a State-managed public house in which people are not allowed to sing, the experiment will not be a success. In Durham there are tens of thousands of people who work in heavy industries, and they like a chance to "let go" during the weekend; it is a sort of safety valve for them. In Carlisle I discovered there was not even a wireless set in any of the houses. When I asked one of the managers, "What about the broadcast of a big fight?" he said that he would bring his own personal wireless into the bar.
I discovered that the internal decoration of the State-managed hotels in Carlisle leaves much to be desired. There is far too much dark oak panelling which, accompanied by old-fashioned lighting, is inclined to be depressing. I saw no signs of better lighting, fluorescent lighting, until I reached the administrative block. The time has come for modern ideas to be translated into practical effect. I should like the managers of the State scheme to come to Durham, and see our working men's clubs, with their bright colour schemes and new plastic furniture. I also noted that adequate seating accommodation is provided, and that managers do their best to persuade people to take advantage of it. But there are difficulties through overcrowding. Carlisle is a big marketing town, with outside visitors in substantial numbers coming to the city, which reflects the Government's policy of full employment. Some of the old brigade think that the reduction of number of licensed houses was far too drastic, and that that has resulted in this congestion.
There is a complaint about service in the public houses. It is admitted that there was a deterioration in the service in the State public houses and hotels during the war, but that was also the case in many private public houses and hotels. Such service was not peculiar to those licensed houses which were controlled by the State. There is talk about the weak beer in Carlisle. Of course, there is weak beer there, but there is a reason. Three grades of beer are brewed there—mild, which has a monopoly, of production, bitter which is excellent, and the bottled beer, which is called "the local." The mild beer, at 1s. 1d. per pint, is the cheapest. I know of no cheaper beer in the country. I know something about this subject, and I say that there is no better value anywhere for the money. Why is it weak?
Before the war, because of lack of purchasing power by the people of Carlisle, the State management scheme had to produce beer which, in the main, had to be priced at a figure in keeping with the pockets of the workers. When war came the State management scheme was allocated raw materials on quota basis on a pre-war beer gravity and found it very difficult to maintain strong gravity beer. Even now, adequate raw materials cannot be obtained, and so we get this


unhappy position. Having talked to the brewer and secretary of the scheme, I am assured that if they are given the requisite raw material they will produce beer that will be as good as any in the country. In my opinion the standard of public houses in Carlisle is very high indeed. In any case, the worst public house I saw was better than the best that could be found in the industrial area of Durham. Some of the public houses in this area are absolute monstrosities. The State management scheme has nothing to be ashamed of, and I am surprised that some Members of the Opposition are trying to queer the pitch.
I will say a few words about staffing matters, of which I have some complaint. There is no system of training within the industry to provide opportunities for promotion. Too many people come in from outside, and this is resented. It is time a training scheme, and system of promotion on the basis of efficiency, was introduced. Ex-Service men who work for the Carlisle scheme tell me that in the Army they were taught that there was a field marshal's baton in every soldier's haversack but that since they have returned, the only baton they are likely to handle is the handle of the beer engine. Private industry encourages its workers to take more responsible jobs, and I think the State Management Committee could do no less.
The time has come to establish a proper negotiating machinery for the industry. At present, there is a great deal of resentment. The workers feel they are working for a grand paying concern. There is far too much delay in settling staff disputes. For instance, the present holidays agreement of the State management scheme dates back 30 years. the workers' representatives are attempting to obtain an improvement, but are finding it difficult. Further, there is no superannuation scheme. The Government should give a lead in these matters. On 16th March the Minister of Labour said he proposed to call the attention of the two sides to the possibility of setting up joint negotiating machinery for the Brewing Industry. There is a feeling that such a body ought to have been created long ago.
Apparently, as no one has said that the State Management scheme should be

abolished, or that it should be improved, things have remained as they are for 30 years. It is said that the present set-up should be abolished. I was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that he would see there was liaison between the district and central authorities by direct representation from districts to centre. There is a feeling among the workers that there are far too many lay magistrates on the local advisory committee. They say it should be more representative of workers, consumers and other interested people. The workers also speak of a return of the percentage of profits. One intelligent chap referred to a statement made by the Chancellor some time ago, that all successful industries should plough some of their profits back into industry. The State management scheme workers in Carlisle share that point of view; they believe they should share some of the profits.
I should like to tell the House about another great experiment, bigger than the State management scheme. It started in 1921. It is the workmen's brewery on the north-east coast—the Northern Clubs Federation Brewery—and it was created because of the harsh treatment by the brewers in denying the workers on Tyne-side and in Northumberland their drink during the 1914–18 war. They taught the workers there to build their own brewery. This brewery last year had a turnover of more than£2 million and we handed back to the shareholders last year a total sum of £384,996 independent of the normal profit. We know what profits are being made in the brewing industry. We have 349 workmen's clubs with 200,000 men engaged in industry by hand and brain and mostly in heavy industry. To these workmen's clubs we give a rebate in the form of a dividend of £2 16s. per bulk barrel, and 15 per cent. dividend from all bottled products.
Since the inception of this brewery in 1921 the astounding figure of £3,307,272 1s. 5d. has been distributed in dividends, discount and interest in capital. In case some hon. Member should ask what sort of beer we brew, I would say that this brewery has swept away every challenge cup that has been offered by the Brewers' Exhibition in days gone by. Since 1921 we have been ploughing the profits back. I suggest to the Minister that when the new scheme comes to


Durham, where the people have been educated on Socialist lines for a long time, they will expect a repetition of this kind of experiment on Tyneside. Important as the State scheme is, it will have to buck up its ideas when it is extended to County Durham. These club men in the north-east have more than £1,250,000 of money waiting for the time when they can build clubs in keeping with the local authority's conception of the housing of the people. The House can see what an excellent standard there has been set in our part of the world and the problem it presents to the Government with regard to the new extension to Durham of the State scheme.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary a number of important questions affecting club men. I hope the House will forgive me, but this is the first chance I have had of speaking since I have been absent on account of illness. These are vital points. I ask the Minister to say whether the rights of existing registered clubs to supply intoxicants to members is to be extended to new clubs formed in those districts? Will those clubs be on the same footing as the other clubs? For instance, will the new clubs be subject to police supervision and police entry without a warrant? We gather from the Bill that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to sell intoxicants, but that it is not his intention to run clubs in which intoxicants are supplied to members. To make this point clear, we ask that references in the Bill to supplying should be deleted.
On the question of the permitted hours in clubs, is it intended to fix the Carlisle system on the new clubs or will the existing law stand as applying to clubs? Will the right of the existing clubs to purchase beer from such brewers as they would desire, or will they be compelled to take supplies from State sources? With regard to the right of a new club to be erected in new town areas, would the Home Secretary preclude land being purchased within such areas for the erection of new clubs? Lastly, I would in all seriousness ask the Home Secretary whether it is true that one of the conditions attached in the most recent instance of the Secretary of State's authority to supply intoxicating liquor in a club in the Carlisle district is that the prices charged for beer or spirits shall not be less than the retail

prices ordinarily charged for beer or spirits of like strength in the public bars of the licensed premises in the neighbourhood? Is that a statement of fact? If so, I submit that the Home Secretary is in for a rather troublesome time with an organisation such as mine, and from the clubs concerned which have built the business up upon a co-operative basis and who claim that clubs' boards of management should have the right to determine in what way they should distribute their profits.
Finally, we say that there should be uniformity of law in all clubs irrespective of whether they are existing and registered or whether they come into the new areas. The new clubs should not be under conditions which do not apply to other clubs existing alongside them. With those qualifications I wish the Bill godspeed on its journey.

8.27 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am sure that the House will welcome back the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Lavers) after his recent illness. Judging by his appearance we may suppose that the products of his local clubs have had much to do with his recovery. He was obviously speaking on good authority, but I should have thought it would have been much more in accordance with custom if he had declared his interest earlier on.
Be that as it may, I would point out that nothing was said about the demands for this Bill that is now being discussed. Hon. Members tonight are discussing the Bill as a very academic affair which has nothing to do with the public. The Secretary of State for Scotland has talked about guiding the people to a new way of life. I have a very great respect for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I suggest that this is the wrong time to come to this House and talk about guiding the people to a new way of life. That is not what they want from the Government or from Members of Parliament. We want some good sound common sense directed towards improving conditions for the people. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) said there should be more free houses. In that respect I agree entirely with him. I should like to see 50 per cent. of the public houses free of the brewers. I have no brief for either the brewers or the


Government in this matter. What I want to see is competition in this business, and I am sure that if we have real competition the people will be better off.
I should have thought that a Measure on this scale should at least have been mentioned in the Gracious Speech. But there was not a word of it. Suddenly it is sprung upon us. As if there is nothing else to fit into this particular day's business but a discussion on legislation for public houses. I think it is an unnecessary Bill and it certainly has very many bad Clauses. It is a bad Bill indeed. Undoubtedly it will go through on Second Reading tonight, but I hope it will be considerably improved in the Committee stage.
We have been told that the people have been led astray in signing petitions. Led astray! When the people voted this Government into power in 1945, we were not told that they were led astray. From Macclesfield I have received 4,230 signatures in a week protesting against this Measure and I have had one letter in favour of this Bill.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether the petition indicates clearly that the real purport of the Bill is understood by those who signed it, because if it does, then it is very different from many of the communications which have been received by hon. Members.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I will read what it says at the top of the paper. It is addressed to myself. It says:
We, the undersigned, view with grave concern the possible outcome of the Licensing Bill at present before the House of Commons. This Bill appears to us to be the first step towards the nationalisation of the public houses and hotels, to which we are strongly opposed. We therefore hope and trust that you will, on our behalf, use every means to oppose the passing of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) may say what he likes about that. The fact is that in Macclesfield my Socialist opponent—who incidentally is now a Tory—obtained 20,000-odd votes, and looking through these names on this petition, I am quite sure that many of them were his supporters. It is quite wrong to say they have been misled. The British people are politically minded. They know the position perfectly well—and I think they know many

things better than many hon. Members in this House.
Supposing the Government were to come back with a majority—personally, I do not think they will—I am quite sure there would be a certain section of hon. Gentlemen opposite who would want complete nationalisation of this trade. That is the trouble with the Government over nationalisation; we never know how far they are going. This Bill is aimed at taking away privileges from the individual which are much valued. Having got through three and half years of their life, the Government should have left this matter alone for the time being and tackled outstanding problems. They know quite well that if they had had a referendum in the country, there would have been very little support for this Measure. Then why talk about guiding the people in a new way of life?
Turning to the soft drinks industry, there is no provision in this Measure for compensation to manufacturers where they lose substantial trade. None at all. It must be admitted that there is very good competition in the soft drinks industry. That has been admitted in this House recently. The cheaper drinks have come down in price since de-control and the more expensive ones have gone up. Probably that is as it should be. I see no point in the Government talking of manufacturing soft drinks.
As has already been mentioned, the residents of these new towns have no opportunity of expressing their views. Surely if we are to move large sections of the public from one place to another they should have some say in what is to take place. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. He does not agree.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): I was shaking my head about that reference to the residents of the new towns. They are not there.

Air-Commodore Harvey: No, but they will be there.
I want to refer briefly to Clause 19, which is to replace Defence Regulation 42C to deal with bottle parties. They have not been mentioned so far, except very briefly by the Home Secretary. I have no doubt that many hon. Members on this and the other side of the House


are more qualified to discuss them than I am, for I go to them very little indeed. I think it would do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite a power of good to go to a bottle party. It might cheer them up. However, if legislation is required for the night life of this great city, let us have real legislation which will improve the conditions. Do not let us have this sort of legislation, which may lead us back to the sort of conditions that we had 25 years ago, when there were various night clubs around London which did nothing but harm to the young men and women who frequented them. That is not what we want.
I say that if the brewers or their associations are agreeing with the Home Secretary in objecting to bottle parties, that carries no weight with me at all. In this great city of ours we have to have conditions in which we can entertain people from abroad, conditions comparable with those of their own countries. If this Bill goes through there will be nothing to do in London after about 11.30 at night or midnight.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is possible to drink in London until 12.30.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Only one or two hotels exercise their privilege of applying for an extended licence. Many people simply will not come here unless they can have some night life. Of the people who frequent bottle parties, 40 per cent. are foreigners. At least, that is the figure I have been given. Of the invitation holders; 40 per cent. are foreigners. That is a very large percentage, and I am told it is on the increase at present.
There are one or two very good restaurants in London, and they have to shut at about midnight. I should have thought that there was a good case for putting bottle parties on the same basis as restaurants and hotels, at the same time extending the hours. Hotels will not keep open because they will have to pay a third shift on the new scale of wages, and that makes the cost prohibitive. Since we must have night life, and bottle parties, let us see that they are run well, and that the sanitary arrangements and the precautions against fire, and so on, are fully satisfactory. I took a foreign gentleman last week to a restaurant in

London to entertain him. He said what a good place it was, and then added, "But why do I have to go home so soon? In my country we begin to come out at about this time."

Mr. George Thomas: Ah, but this is our country.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Maybe, but we want foreign visitors to come here. People do not make a habit of going to bottle parties every night, or to night clubs. They go there once in a while, and they are not wrong in doing so. If on one night they drink only half of what they order, they are allowed to keep the remainder until their next visit to the club. The remainder of their drink is labelled and sealed. That is a very fair arrangement. At most hotels, if one buys a bottle, it must be consumed during that one visit.
I do not believe that the young men and women of today drink very much at all. Certainly, during the war, in the messes the young men drank very little; mostly soft drinks. The same is true of the Smoking Room. The amount of tomato juice consumed in the morning and the evening is quite amazing. I am told that the foreign embassies telephone to the bottle parties to reserve tables for their official visitors, and that the ambassadors themselves frequent these establishments. Of course, they all have to be introduced. They just cannot come to London and go to a bottle party. They have to have a proper introduction and fill in the various necessary forms; and, then, eventually they are notified that they may use the premises.
Now that the Home Secretary has come in again—if I may have his attention for a moment, and if he will listen to this one point—I would remind him that he referred today to the closing down of a number of undesirable bottle parties and night clubs. I think that the figure he gave was 70. Surely, he will agree that if he has got rid of the undesirable clubs those that are left are desirable and are well run. If that is so, then why close them down?

Mr. G. Thomas: A bottle party is never desirable.

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is all very well to say that. That may be so in Cardiff, but it does not apply to


London. My own belief is that, having got rid of these undesirable night clubs, what we want to do is to improve the ones that we have—the clubs that can earn us the foreign exchange and hard currency which we want so much. I ask the Government to reconsider this whole matter. This is an unpopular Measure throughout the country. I believe that the Government will regret it, and I ask them to review the Bill very carefully and bring back one which is more in line with public opinion.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Lyne: I am very grateful to have the opportunity of dealing with one or two points which I think have been entirely missed during the Debate. I do so, because I feel that the Bill itself, good for the greater part, is, so far as Clauses 2 and 3 are concerned, entirely misleading, unwise and unnecessary. I am not opposed to State management in any respect, but I feel that the alternative system that will operate in the new town areas, is not the State control system as we have it in Carlisle. I believe that this Bill would have met with the general approval of most Members in this House had the issue been narrowed down to the question raised in Clause 1, leaving out Clauses 2 and 3, because I think all of us would agree that where a development board is planning a new town, the erection of refreshment houses should be under the ownership and control of those who have spent large sums of money in order to build the new town as we want it to be built.
I believe that there is a much better way of dealing with the situation than is to be found in this Bill. After all, State management as we know it in Carlisle is not the only alternative. It is quite possible by the erection of these houses under the control of the, corporations and, under the ownership of the local authorities, to plan the houses just as would be done under the system which operates in Carlisle, and to put in tenants who would be responsible for the conduct of the houses. What is more, they would be entirely free houses and not tied to any particular brewer. Furthermore, that would do away with the necessity of establishing boards of management, whether local or remote.
A good deal has been said in the course of the Debate in eulogy of the

Carlisle system. I do not know the system as it operates in Carlisle, and I accept the views of those who know most about the system; but, at the same time, the houses that have been built under the scheme have shown a considerable advance on the situation that applied before the State took control. Let us remember that throughout the whole of the country there has been a general improvement in the standard of licensed houses over the past 30 years. It is not to Carlisle alone that credit should be given, unless it be credit for being the first city to establish the houses as we know them there, and as we want them to be elsewhere. But that would not, in any circumstances, prevent the standard in licensed houses erected in new towns being equal to, if not an improvement upon, that set in Carlisle.
The one point on which I profoundly disagree with the Government in respect of the advocacy of the first three Causes is that the State-controlled licensed Muses in the new towns are given a monopoly. Clause 2 not only deals with the erection of new houses in the new towns, but gives the Home Secretary power to take over existing licenses in the designated area. Clause 3 gives the Home Secretary power to go beyond the specified area of a new town and to include adjacent land, without any specified limit to the extent to which he can go. I had hoped that when the Home Secretary spoke this afternoon he would deal with the criticisms that have been levelled in respect of the provision to include adjacent areas, but to my surprise he made no mention of whether or not there was to be any geographical limit to the extent of his powers. Unless some reply is made tonight to those criticisms, I shall have to go into the Lobby and vote against the Bill.
I believe in State control, and I believe in State ownership where there are monopolies. If the brewing industry were a monopoly today, or if it became a monopoly, I should be strongly in favour of State control of the industry as a whole. But I know that there is tremendous competition among the large brewers of this country. At the same time, when the Government allow an industry to remain under private enterprise, as is suggested with this industry, it is unwise to establish a hegemony of


State-controlled licensed houses in an area where there are existing licences, and where there should be the free play of competition between the State houses and the existing private enterprise licensed houses. If there is something better in State management—as I believe there is—than in the tied houses of the brewers, then let free competition prove it to the general public. If State management proves to be better the obvious course is to extend it to areas where, up to now, it has not existed.
I hope that whoever replies for the Government tonight will deal with these three specific questions. First, is it the intention of the Government, under Clause 2, to take over existing licences in the designated area? Secondly, is it the intention of the Government to fix a limit for the adjacent areas which can be brought under the scheme? Thirdly, is it the intention of the Government to prevent any form of competition in the area they propose shall be State managed?

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I hope that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lyne), whose support to our opposition we welcome, will forgive me if I do not comment on anything he has said because I have promised to be very brief. The reason I intervene in this Debate is that many of my constituents in Twickenham are going to be offered accommodation in the new town of Bracknell in Berkshire, which is to take the overflow—I think that is a better word than "overspill"—of Twickenham and other towns in West Middlesex. It is therefore not surprising that I, like so many other Members, have received a large number of letters about this Bill, including a number from constituents who say they are members of the Labour Party, and all protest, without exception, against this Bill. The Home Secretary has said that the Bill will affect only one in 573 of the inhabitants of this country, but, whether that be so or not, it is no consolation for the one person who is to be affected adversely by it. I have had more protests against this Bill than on any other subject since this Parliament began. I am not referring to round robins which it is so easy to get signed in public houses, but to personal letters

from people who are perfectly well aware that this Bill applies only to the new towns.
The gist of these letters is that a State public house, managed and staffed by State servants, never mind how efficient they may be, subject to Whitehall control—which means the destruction of the traditional spirit of the British pub—governed by State rules, selling mainly State beer—and I am very glad that, owing to the generosity and enterprise of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower), we are to have an opportunity to taste it after the Debate—subject to no competition except by other pubs likewise bound by the State—a public house with all these handicaps can never be a substitute satisfactory to the Englishman for the local of his own choice, which is free to satisfy his needs, and does so for the very best of all reasons, namely that it is subject to competition from other public houses which are eager to meet those needs. The Home Secretary said that the Press accounts of this Bill were a caricature, but I assert that his account of the objections to it, if not a caricature, at any rate shows a complete failure to appreciate them.
It is impossible to imagine a trade less suited to nationalisation than the licensed trade, where so much depends on the individuality of the landlord. It is also impossible to imagine anyone less suitable for the job of landlord of a pub than a civil servant. I think that the experience of Carlisle, of which we have heard so much in this Debate, proves the limitations of the civil servant landlord. I have had put into my hands a notice which was copied yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), in a public house in Carlisle. He is unable to read it himself because he has not been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. It runs:
In order to maintain the amenities of this room, and also in order to safeguard the comfort of 'customers, the management desire it to be known that members of the staff have been requested not to serve customers who have been unable to obtain seats.
No wonder that people who hear about these things happening in Carlisle are somewhat discouraged from migrating to a new town.
The calling of a landlord requires character, humour and infinite patience,


and we cannot expect all these qualities in a civil servant who is subject to Whitehall orders. A State publican will always be a very poor substitute for the publican we know, whose methods are derived by tradition, albeit unconsciously, perhaps subconsciously, from the ancient hospitality dispensed to wayfarers by manor or monastery. The two types are absolutely poles apart.
What is the Bill for? There is no need for State ownership, because the trade is already subject to control from top to bottom. Does it meet a public demand? I submit that all the evidence is to the contrary. My conclusion is that the Government, blind to the facts, deaf to the wishes of the public, have fallen victims to the pedantic theories of the Fabian Society, and have slipped this Bill into their legislative programme without mandate, without warning and without good reason.

8.56 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: We are now drawing to the end of a very important Debate, and in view of the number of Members who were recently on their feet, it is a pity that the Debate could not have been extended. Although there are three parts to this Bill the Debate today has been primarily concerned with Part I. I suppose there is reason for that in that in Parts II and III there are not matters of great principle involved. On the other hand, there is room for great difference of opinion on Clauses 19 and 20, to which the Home Secretary referred, and which come within the orbit of Part III. But generally, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, Parts II and III deal with matters of less fundamental importance, which can properly be considered on the Committee stage.
Part I has excited the keenest controversy throughout the country and great differences of opinion in this House. No one will deny that principles of the first magnitude are involved. In these circumstances I propose to devote my time entirely to that part of the Measure. We were told by the Home Secretary that Part I of this Bill provides for the system now in existence in Carlisle, Gretna and Greenock, which was brought into existence under the Defence of the Realm Act in 1915, and continued by the Licensing Act, 1921, being applied to

all new towns, and also to such areas adjacent to them as may be expedient for securing effective State management or for including in a continuous district two or more new towns lying near one another. Under that provision, there is no doubt that areas of hundreds of square miles in extent can and will be brought under State management.
In fact, we have before us now a proposal to embrace in areas limited only by the modesty of the Secretary of State, a system of management which on the evidence of Carlisle, was necessary 33 years ago, in areas where great munition works were in process of construction, involving the importation into the district of many thousands of navvies, many of whom let us remember, came from a country now outwith the United Kingdom. Those men were earning enormous wages judged by the standards of that time and had no proper outlet for the expenditure of those wages. Further, they were housed under very poor conditions. Those were the circumstances, in which, with an insufficient police force to control them, drunkenness occurred to an extent almost unbelievable today. It was to meet that situation that this system of State management of the liquor trade was introduced.
Is it really contemplated that the conditions which led to that system will occur in our new towns? Even to make the suggestion is ridiculous. On the other hand, the implications cast a slur on the habits and civic sense of the tens of thousands of people who in course of time will inhabit those new towns. It also exposes to the public view the mentality of the present Government and makes plain the fact, which we on these benches at least have long suspected, that they are living in the days of the past and that their outlook and judgment are warped by stories which the great majority of them could only have heard from their dads, of conditions which have long ceased to exist.
I want to repeat certain questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will find it convenient to answer them. My right hon. and learned Friend wished to know—and so do all of us on this side of the House—whether the Government


claim any mandate for the extension of State control to the extent proposed in this Bill. We also want to know whether there has been any public demand; whether the churches, the temperance societies or the corporations of the new towns have made any representations; whether they have ever been consulted, and whether the matter has ever been considered by the Labour Party Conference or the Trades Union Congress. Indeed, is it not contrary to the declared policy of the Labour Party laid down in 1918, and never repudiated, that local option should be pursued? There is very little local option in this Bill.
The Government must have some justification, a justification far greater than that which the Home Secretary gave today, for the introduction of a Measure which removes from the hands of local justices and local licensing courts all control over the liquor trade in their own locality. Local opinion is no longer to have any say whatsoever. As things are now, any body of citizens has the right to object to the imposition of a licensed house in their immediate neighbourhood, but under the new régime that does not appear to be allowed in the new towns. Men who know the needs and wishes of their districts are to have no opportunity of providing for those needs or meeting those wishes. Everything is to be removed from local control and concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State and the pundits of Whitehall.
The Secretary of State is to appoint the local advisory committee. We have had a good deal of experience of local advisory committees in other directions. The Secretary of State sets great store by them, but I am not sure that the rest of us think them of much account. No other person than a man appointed by the right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to sell retail or to supply liquor to licensed premises or registered clubs in any State-managed district. The patronage which will be available to the right hon. Gentleman will soon be very much greater even than that available to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and all his other right hon. Friends put together.
Let no licensee of premises or any member of a registered club take comfort

from the proviso in Clause 3 (1, a). He may have a licence today but that is not to say that he will have one three months after the Bill becomes an Act. I invite them to take note of what happened in Carlisle where, within a few months, every house had been compulsorily acquired and in consequence traders of long standing were deprived not only of their businesses but of their livelihood and were compelled to seek some other means of earning their living elsewhere. In Carlisle the demand was for complete monopoly, and that will happen again.

Mr. Mothers: For compensation.

Commander Galbraith: Very poor compensation. I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to observe the great opportunities for increasing patronage which the Government will obtain under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Subsection. Under these the Home Secretary can grant authority for almost anything, and they enable favours to be extended either to the co-operative societies or to other privileged bodies or persons.
Now let me try to find some justification for this Measure. It is not to be found in the decrease of drunkenness in Carlise as compared with other places. My right hon. and learned Friend gave the figures of convictions. In brief, in 85 county boroughs between 1917 and 1938 Carlisle never stood higher than forty-ninth on the list, and has descended today to a much lower figure in the sixties. Out of 19 towns of comparable size in 1947, Carlisle occupied only the tenth place. I should like the House to mark that proceedings were taken in twice as many cases as in Great Yarmouth, which is of a similar population—perhaps the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) and the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) will note this—and Great Yarmouth has 3½ times the number of licensed houses of Carlisle, and in a seafaring place there is much more excuse for these unfortunate occurrences than there is in Carlisle.

Mr. Beswick (Uxbridge): How does this fit in with the argument advanced earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that in the State-managed public houses, people were discouraged from drinking?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think that the remarks of the hon. Member apply at all. I am merely pointing out that in a town of the same size there were half the number of convictions with three and a half times the number of licensed premises. I am not surprised at the lowly position occupied by Carlisle for the good reasons given by my right hon. and learned Friend, which the Home Secretary had tried previously to brush aside. In fact in the licensed premises in Carlisle, other than those few which happen to have billiard tables, people get little or no opportunity to entertain themselves other than by drinking and, so far as I can discover, the drink that is supplied lacks both quality and variety. The Home Secretary said that the lack of amenities could be disproved by anyone who cared to visit Carlisle or other State management districts. I do not know, but one of his right hon. Friends has actually visited them. I find that the Secretary of State for Scotland visited Annan on 31st March, 1948, and this is what the "Annandale Observer" has to say about it:
The Secretary of State was interviewed by an Annandale Obesrver' reporter, and asked about the criticism which was made in the Town Council some months ago regarding the State-controlled houses in Annan. Mr. Woodburn said he had heard little criticism that day, but accompanied our reporter into a public bar in State-controlled premises in Annan. When he entered the place he looked round and said, 'This certainly casts no credit on State management.'
Seeking further justification, I have gone through practically every report of every Royal Commission or other committee appointed to inquire into this matter, and I will give to the Rause what the Southborough Committee on the State management of public houses had to say in 1927. In paragraph 50, I find these words:
We are not satisfied that a case has been established for the extension of the schemes"—
that is, the State-management schemes—
to any other particular area or place… it would not be justifiable to terminate them at this stage.
There is nothing helpful from the point of view of the Government in that reference. Then I referred to the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1931, which has been mentioned so often during this Debate. I found that while they were in

favour of the continuance of the Carlisle system, they suggested that public ownership should be applied elsewhere so that the system might be submitted to a further test in areas where there was a superfluity of licences. I suggest that that would not apply to this Bill. In the nature of things the number of licences will be smaller to start with in proportion to the ultimate population. Two somewhat revealing sentences later on prove that the Bill does not carry out the recommendations of that Commission The first says:
We think that the management should be removed further from direct State and Treasury control.
I will repeat the quotation which was given by my right hon. and learned Friend:
We do not reject the possibility of other schemes providing for further divorcement of the undertaking from State control.
In my contention the whole tenor of the Bill is in complete contradiction of these sentiments.
My right hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the findings of the Committee on war-damaged licensed premises and reconstruction—the Morris Committee of 1944. In particular he called attention to that Committee's recognition that progress was not consistent with the establishment of stereotyped standards or set patterns. Again, the Bill departs directly from that suggestion. The point which has impressed me most, and no doubt has impressed other hon. Members also, is that while the Morris Committee had every opportunity for doing so, it made no suggestion whatever that better results could be obtained under State control.
Now I come to the last of these Reports, the Report of the New Towns Committee of 1946. It contains no proposal whatsoever for the introduction of State management. In those circumstances, in the lack of any demand or of any mandate, in the failure of Carlisle to show any improvement in social conditions over other places, and as, apart from the somewhat tepid suggestion in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1931 that further experiments might be made, no proposals for a Measure of this kind appeared in the Reports of the Morris or the Reith Committees, I can only conclude that the Government have no real justification for the Bill.
My conviction in this direction is strengthened in view of the developments which have taken place over the last 30 years: the great improvement in amenities which have been provided, the change in the social habits of the people, no doubt connected with the transformation of the public house which has taken place as a result of the awakened conscience of the licensed trade, and the expenditure of vast sums of money.
There have been suggestions that the Bill is warranted as a means of curbing drunkenness or of preventing the urge to get drunk. The official figures of convictions for drunkenness, given in detail by my right hon. and learned Friend, dispose completely of that contention. Briefly, in 1913 there were 180,000 convictions for drunkenness; in 1947 they had been reduced to 25,541. These figures show what a remarkable change in social habits has come about. No doubt many factors have contributed to that change, including the much greater literature which is now available and the much greater variety of entertainment which has been opened up during the last 40 years.
Credit is due also to those who have helped to restore to the English inn and public house the social atmosphere which was its great attribute until it was destroyed or debased by the industrial revolution when great numbers of people were gathered into congested localities. That is a matter of history but the English inn today is being rapidly restored to its old time rôle and place in a healthy social life. The figures of the number of convictions and the great fall which has taken place, prove that the average citizen is quite capable of deciding for himself where and how he can obtain his entertainment.
In the connection in which we are discussing entertainment today, I remind the House that the ordinary man does not talk so much nowadays of the public house or the "pub." He speaks in fact of "my local" with emphasis on the word "my." He chooses it himself because he likes it. He likes the atmosphere, the landlord and the company and he likes the type of recreation and the refreshment that is provided. What was it in English life that struck the men who came here from overseas

to fight during the war? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen are quite correct. It was the warm and friendly social atmosphere of the English inn. That atmosphere is to be destroyed entirely and completely by this Bill.
The owner and the independent licensee are to be dispaced by a manager who will pay far more attention to the instructions he receives, in order to keep his job, than he will to the enjoyment of his customers. The buildings will become standardised and stereotyped just as are those of the post offices and labour exchanges today. They all tend to conform to one type. The choice of refreshment will be limited. It is no use at all for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they are limited today in the tied house, because we are able within a reasonable distance, either to find a free house or the tied house of another brewer. Those conditions will not exist when this Bill becomes an Act. All of us will have to put up with what the State thinks is good for us, and not what we would wish to obtain for ourselves.
An attempt has also been made to decry the great implications of this Measure and, in particular, the size of the areas concerned. I should like hon. Gentlemen to read closely and with care Clause 2, Subsections (2) and (3), to which attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). They will find there that the areas are capable of almost indefinite expansion—and that, at the mere whim of the Secretary of State. All of us know quite well how little protection is provided by the local inquiry or the negative Resolution procedure in this House. Indeed, it is possible under Clause 2 to bring the whole of the London area itself within the scheme. So far as Scotland is concerned, it is obvious that Glasgow at least, with a new town at East Kilbride on one side and another new town suggested at Bishopton on the other, could also be included. Be that as it may, why should any large areas be treated differently from the rest? Why should some parts of the country be free to decide for themselves and other parts of the country have this system with all its restrictions thrust upon them? Why should they have to submit to the dictation of the Secretary of State?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really suggests that he can provide


better for the new towns than the inhabitants can provide for themselves as, for example, they did at Welwyn Garden City as is so ably portrayed by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) in a book of which he was the joint author, and on the tone of which I congratulate him. Why not follow the precedent set by Welwyn? Why not leave the new town corporations to get on with the job themselves? Why not, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggested, go in for a system of licensing planning committees such as those set up under the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945? They are functioning well and successfully in no fewer than 31 areas today.
I have always looked on the two right hon. Gentlemen whose names are particularly connected with this Measure as rather modest men. But now that they are taking on the role of dictators, I do not like them half so much. They are taking it upon themselves to decide where, when and how their fellow countrymen should drink and what they should drink, the atmosphere in which they will foregather and the entertainment which will be provided, what games they will be permitted to enjoy and what food they will be allowed to eat. Considering how very intimately these matters ere concerned with individual taste and choice, is it not really a piece of pure impertinence and a gross presumption on the part of Ministers to take it upon themselves to decide these things for people who are just as adult as they are, and just as capable of deciding for themselves? What would either of the right hon. Gentlemen think if I had attempted to impose the conditions on which they should enjoy their leisure? What moral right or justification have they to decide these things for their fellow citizens?
What is happening is that the country is beginning to get a taste of Socialist superiority, the kind of superiority which is obvious in the members of the Fabian Society and those who have been through the London School of Economics, the busybody technique, "the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best" attitude of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the "we are the masters now" attitude of the Attorney-General. If I

know anything about my fellow-countrymen, they are not going to take this interference in their own private affairs either from this or any other Government.
There are two other aspects of this Bill which call for some comment. The first concerns the powers which it gives to the Secretary of State either to compete with or interfere in the activities which the local authorities have been authorised to carry on either under the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Civic Restaurants Act. I leave it there for hon. Gentlemen to consider that point. The other is the power which the Secretary of State has to enter into competition with any bona fide trader. The Bill empowers him to enter into any aspect of the hotel and catering trade, licensed or unlicensed, from the smallest teashop to the largest possible hotel. He can set himself up as a brewer, a blender of wines and spirits, a bottler, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer of table waters, and he can provide entertainment of any kind whatsoever, so long as he sees that a snack bar is attached.
This Bill envisages the State entering into competition with private traders on the widest possible scale. It is a warning to manufacturers and traders, great and small, of the Government's real intentions. It is the thin edge of the wedge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Gentlemen admit it. It is the thin edge of the wedge, and, with the Iron and Steel Bill, it forms a precedent which will be extended as opportunity offers. I am glad that my remarks have met with such general approval. The aim of the Government, in spite of protestations to the contrary, becomes perfectly clear. They are not going to rest content until they have transformed this country into a Socialist State, with the State in complete control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. That is the real issue which confronts the country. It is not a question of 80 per cent. free enterprise, as the Government have suggested; it is a case of 100 per cent. State activity in every field.
I have hitherto dealt with the effect of this Measure on the United Kingdom as a whole. I want now to deal with the situation purely as affecting Scotland. In Scotland, the temperance party, backed wholeheartedly by the churches, is I


believe stronger and more powerful than in England, and, in Scotland, there exists among the public a deep objection to either the Government or the local authorities being in any way connected with the liquor trade. That was very clearly demonstrated at the time of the passage of the Civic Restaurants Bill when on the pretence of the difference in the laws of the two countries, but really on the strength of public opinion, the Government bowed and excluded Scotland from that part of the Bill authorising the local authorities to sell liquor in their own restaurants.
So far as England is concerned, the Government find a small thread of justification in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1931, though they cannot so far as Scotland is concerned. I will read the relevant passages of the Report of that Royal Commission. The members of the Commission had recently visited the Annan district, and in paragraph 188 of the Report they said:
The impression left upon the minds of those who visited the various parts of the district was that, with perhaps one exception, the licensed houses attained to, but were no better than, the general standard which we would expect to find in privately-owned establishments under similar conditions elsewhere.
In the next paragraph they said:
The plea for their continuance was based on the desire to carry on in these districts an interesting social experiment.
I am going to quote the whole of the next paragraph, although my right hon. and learned Friend has already quoted half of it. It says:
We have come without difficulty to the conclusion that this plea has not been substantiated, and that the weight of the evidence is strongly against retaining these two exceptional districts. Apart from the official witnesses the evidence laid before us was almost unanimous in condemnation of the system of State management, and we feel that we should not be justified in advocating its continuance merely as an experiment even in its present limited form.
It is interesting to note the point with which they conclude:
We have based our recommendation solely on what we consider to be the general interest of the country.
I suggest that if this Bill is founded in any way on the Report of the English Commission—and that was claimed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—then we in Scotland have an

equal right to found on the Report of the Scottish Committee, and to claim that Scotland should be excluded from this Bill. From the advice which is available to me, this Bill does, in fact, over-rule the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913. That is the advice which I have been given. We know that it is not the intention of the Government, as has been explained to us by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State has given a pledge, but we must insist that that pledge is inserted in this Bill. Apart from Part I of the Bill being most imperfect as far as Scotland is concerned, of the 10 Clauses in Part II, only one applies to Scotland, and Part III does not apply to Scotland at all. In these circumstances, Scotland should never have been in the Bill and it should now be removed.
This Bill, in that it removes local control from things that are vital to and should be left to the determination of local people, and concentrates under a central authority matters of local interest, weakens local democracy and strikes at the very roots of democracy itself. In that it interferes with individual choice and impinges on the legitimate desires of private citizens, and sets up the State in competition with private traders, and, also, in that it creates a State monopoly over a wide field, it is a bad and vicious Bill.
It is, again, a bad Bill because it transgresses on principles strongly held by people in Scotland. It is a Bill which no one at all desires, and on which no body of authoritative opinion has been consulted. It is a Bill without rhyme, reason or justification of any kind. Further, I contend that it is a Bill which is an insult to every man and woman in the country, and particularly to those who in future will live in the new towns. It is a Bill which may react adversely on that great advance in social conduct which we have witnessed in recent years. As such, it should be treated with absolute contempt. I hope, therefore, that there will gather in the Division Lobby tonight a majority of Members from every party in the House to support the Amendment so ably moved by my right hon. and learned Friend.

9.30 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think the House will agree with me that the Opposition Front Bench is to be congratulated


on one thing—that is the great harmony that there was between the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who opened, and the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) who wound up, for the Opposition. Indeed, I thought that there was not only harmony but almost identity in the speech to which we have just listened—having regard to the frequency with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman echoed—"As my right hon. and learned Friend said in opening the Debate." There was a great similarity between the two speeches—not that I am complaining about that; I think there is a lot to be said for it in all parties. On the other hand, the last speech might have provided a little more variety, if some new points had been introduced. We had a bit of fire, and of good "Morning Advertiser" tub-thumping from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have been reading the "Morning Advertiser" lately. It is not usually so extensively read as to reach me, but I have been reading it lately, and I have found it lively and interesting, with a good deal of rather exciting misrepresentation of this Bill and of the Government.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok has dealt with the origins of what has been known as the Carlisle experiment. I do not need to recount the historical origins of that scheme of State management, or disinterested management, which took place in Carlisle. It was largely started, I think, by the late Mr. Lloyd George in the Coalition Government of the first world war and there was, as has been indicated, an exceedingly serious drink problem at that time in the Carlisle area. I would not quarrel over-much with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member as to the circumstances and the causes of that serious situation. As a consequence of the introduction of the State scheme, the amount of drinking in the Carlisle area certinly did decrease dramatically during that war.
Indeed, the experiment so far established itself, although it was done under Defence Regulation, then known as the Defence of the Realm Act, during the first world war, that it was continued by statutory enactment by the Coalition

Government after the war—a Government of which Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister, but in which the Conservatives were, I think, predominant. That was a remarkable thing, because undoubtedly that scheme is in principle, as we have seen today, contrary to the principles of the Conservative Party. The real explanation is that it was so outstanding a success that Liberals like Mr. Lloyd George and others, Conservatives and Labour men and women, too, felt it would be a tragedy for that scheme to be abandoned. In fact, it led to a diminution of drunkenness, and of drinking, and to the encouragement of other forms of drink and also of food.
I would not advocate that, as a consequence there should be prohibition of alcoholic consumption, but it is a legitimate ambition and legitimate aim of social policy that the existence of State management houses and of disinterested management should lead to absence of the pushing of alcoholic liquors, which might otherwise take place. I expect, and indeed I think that it will be a good thing, that this will be one of the results if State managed public houses are established under this Bill. While the nation will not go teetotal in these new towns, nevertheless, the probability is that the amount of alcohol consumed will diminish, and I think that that is a perfectly legitimate purpose of social policy in this regard.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok quoted some figures about certain selected county boroughs—on something like a population basis, I think. However, I am not complaining about the fairness of the quotations as to the relative figures of proceedings for drunkenness in Carlisle and certain other county boroughs. None of us can be dead sure about the implication of the statistics that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us, or those I am going to give—except that, as statistics, they are right. But one must look behind these statistics for possible explanations or qualifications, in view of the circumstances with which one is dealing.
I noticed in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's list though I have not got it in front of me at the moment there was a fair proportion of what I should call quiet-living, rather select towns, of the


type of Cambridge. It is probable that, in some of these quiter and more select towns, public house life is not quite so vigorously furthered as it is in working-class towns which have not the same good housing conditions. Moreover, in these quiet and select towns it is quite likely that people may conceivably, in individual cases, consume more in their homes than the proletariat consumes in the public houses.
Therefore, the figures are not conclusive, and I am not going to say that the figures I am about to give are conclusive. But they are for what they are worth. They are official, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figures. The only difference is that I am taking the comparison of Carlisle with all the county boroughs, and this, with respect, I am inclined to think is a better comparison than that with a select body of county boroughs on a population basis. I should say that I have been to Carlisle both to preach the word of the Labour Party, and to see the State management scheme. I should say that Carlisle is a good, respectable, average type of city of predominantly working-class character. I hope that that will not offend my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson). According to the statistics, the legal proceedings for drunkenness in 1938 were, for all the county boroughs, per 1,000 of the population, 2.28, and for Carlisle, 1.52; in 1947 the proceedings were, for all county boroughs, per 1,000 of the population, 1.11, and for Carlisle, 38. It is a notable diminution in both cases. However, I only say that the diminution in Carlisle from 1.52 to .38 is a more dramatic reduction than that of all the county boroughs. Therefore, I think that as a social experiment, Carlisle has succeeded.
It may be relevant or not—I do not know—to quote what an authoritative Liberal publication said about this, especially as the Liberal Party—once more falling into it—have an Amendment down in the Order Paper proposing the complete rejection of the Bill. One of these days, perhaps, we shall have a Liberal proposal on the Order Paper conforming with Liberal policy. I have here a document which was written as long ago as 1928.

Mr. Frank Byers: Before my time.

Mr. Morrison: I dare say it was. I can quite imagine it. It was before the time of the hon. Gentleman, because this has a ring of Liberalism about it. As I have said, it was as long ago as 1928—and, of course, since then the policy of the Liberal Party by its progressive freedom of mind, has become, naturally still more progressive. That is what ought to have happened. This is what this book says. I admit that it is soft-pedalled and very careful. The reason is that, at that time, there was a considerable division in the temperance movement as to whether they favoured State management or not. That is well known. Even today, among some temperance elements, there is some doubt about it. This book is published by the Liberal and Radical Candidates' Association, after consultation with the National Liberal Federation. It says about the Carlisle scheme:
Introduced as an administrative expedient in face of a temporary breakdown of the existing system, the schemes are a challenging experiment in reform which is bound to have considerable influence on future proposals for dealing with the licensing problem. For any final deductions to be drawn, however, as to the possibilities of the system, its trial under normal conditions in a large industrial area would be necessary.
That is exactly what we propose to do by this Bill. On page 60 of this Liberal publication—

Mr. Byers: Put it away. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find better evidence than that, he really ought to give it up.

Mr. Morrison: We have now got to the point when the hon. Gentleman, in cultivating the Tory vote at Dorset, begs me to put away an authoritative Liberal publication.

Mr. Byers: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to explain to the House what he meant by the implication that I was courting the Tories of Dorset? He knows that I defeated the Tory candidate.

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman goes on gravitating in the Tory direction, the Tory candidate will defeat him the next time. 'There is another extract from this book which says:
Whether conditions could be improved elsewhere by the adoption of a similar scheme would largely depend on the degree of efficiency obtained in administration. Experience of undertakings by public bodies in other


fields, as well as considerations of finance, would suggest the desirability of an experimental, rather than general or haphazard method of extension.
There is nothing general or haphazard about this extension of the Carlisle scheme, and, therefore, we are firmly in line with what, I think, was a reasonable commentary upon the Carlisle experiment.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the Debate asked me to answer three questions. First of all, the question of the mandate. I am not going to accept the argument that everything that every Government does has to be justified by specific electoral declaration or mandate. This matter arose incidentally, in relation to new towns. Certainly we had a mandate for proper town and country planning. Certainly we had a mandate, which was well within the broad line of policy of the new towns, and when we came to the actual proposals for the new towns, we had to consider what was the best way of running the licensed premises. It really is an incidental matter, a by-product of the new towns' policy, as to how the licensed premises should be dealt with. Therefore, the question of a specific mandate does not arise. This is not such a startling Bill as all that. Indeed, that is why this Bill was not in the King's Speech. But then not every Bill was in the King's Speech. Quite frankly, we did not regard this as one of those exciting Measures which ought to occupy a place there. There has been far more excitement about the Bill in the columns of the "Morning Advertiser" than there has been during this day in the House of Commons.
Last week some of my hon. Friends—and I was very sorry about it—were worried in their hearts and minds about a Bill dealing with National Service, as they were worried about a previous National Service Bill, which became an Act of Parliament. Some of them—and I do not boast about it; I am very sorry and weep about it—voted against the Bill, much to my consternation and unhappiness. But did the Conservative Party then say that the Government had no mandate for the passing of the National Service Bill? As a matter of fact, I will freely give this point to my hon. Friends who voted against the Government on that Bill: I am bound to admit that the Government

had no electoral mandate for the passing of that Bill. But that is not, in itself, a reason why it should be voted against. The fact is that a Government, when elected, must govern the country to the best of its ability, and within the broad limits imposed by the circumstances of the time. When circumstances emerge which require the Government to take hold of some situation they must take hold of it and answer to the electorate when the next General Election comes—which we shall do, with all the customary vigour and confidence that is characteristic of the Labour Party.
The fact is that the trade has worked itself up into an excessive degree of excitement, as if this were a social revolution. I even hear that some of my hon. Friends are nervous about this Bill, and think it is rather a bold and revolutionary Measure. But only the other day they voted with great equanimity for a much bolder Measure, namely the Measure for the socialisation of iron and steel; and I do suggest to them that, if a few weeks ago they could swallow iron and steel, they should be able to swallow liquor under this Bill tonight. I expect I shall hear more of that.
Now with regard to public demand. I do not say that there is a heated, excited public demand for the particular provisions of this Bill, any more than there is really any heated, excited, public antagonism to the Bill. But I do say that this method, of dealing with the liquor traffic is not one of the big issues of politics. The temperance question, as a whole, has always been a matter of public interest, and still is. Nevertheless this particular issue in relation to these new towns is not causing a lot of heat and excitement up and down the land. But ever since the Carlisle experiment was established, there has been a powerful body of opinion among reformers, not only of the Labour Party but also of other parties—a substantial and a growing temperance opinion—in favour of this method of mitigating the possible evils of the liquor traffic as regards excessive consumption.
Therefore, behind this Bill there is a substantial body of public opinion which has taken a special interest in the temperance problem and in the problem of planning our towns. To that extent we are entitled to claim that we have


a considerable degree of public support. I shall not go back to the Labour Party Conference of 1918 to find out exactly what it said, or to argue, as has been done, that as the Labour Party has not said much about that subject since, it must still be the policy of the Labour Party. It is not good enough to assume that because the Labour Party Conference of 1918 said something which it has not since contradicted, it must still be Labour Party policy.

Mr. Byers: rose—

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the discomfort of the hon. Member, and I am sorry if I have again trodden on his toes.

Mr. Byers: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Morrison: It is not vital that the hon. Member should be heard at this point. We have just been told from the Opposition a long and pathetic story about civil servant publicans and bureaucrats dominating the bars, whereas mine ancient host ought to be there; and that the Government are presuming the right to prescribe what should be drunk and how it should be drunk. What nonsense. "The hon. and gallant Member knows it is utterly untrue. But there was a Tory Member who was yesterday trying to interfere with what we shall drink. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. McFarlane) asked the Minister of Food how much he had spent recently on imported ingredients in the manufacture of soft drinks; and the Minister gave him the answer in regard to fruit juice, citric acids and other perfectly healthy sounding things, including essential oils. The hon. Member then promptly said:
Does not the Minister think it utterly indefensible that such expenditure should be encouraged for such a purpose, in view of our present necessities?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 35.]
Who is trying to dictate to the people what they shall drink?

Mr. McFarlane: rose—

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the hon. Member will get another chance. I am very sorry, but my time is limited.

Brigadier Thorp: The right hon. Gentleman cannot take it.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member cannot take it. The trade has really got itself into a state of hysteria about this Bill. Our case is that if my right hon. Friend had not done anything in this direction and had left it to ordinary trade development, he would have got into great difficulties. It is not that we have a bitter quarrel with the brewers or the publicans; nothing of the kind. There is nothing personal, spiteful or vindictive about the policy behind this Bill. My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland are really in a great difficulty about this. They were in the difficulty that the public houses do not exist when it came to arranging who should have the licences, the licences would either have to be sorted out on the basis of distributing them equally among competitive brewers; or, as the brewers seem to feel, on the basis that my right hon. Friend should do a deal with them and distribute the licences among the brewers formed into preconceived spheres of influence—an understandable policy. In our view that would be wrong. That is not free competition. In our view the provisions of this Bill are an essential part of the planning of these new towns. The arrangements ought to be fitted into the general requirements of the new towns and in a way where we can get the maximum of private social enterprise, with the minimum of sheer incitement in the consumption of alcoholic liquors.

Brigadier Peto: That is the thin end of the pledge. [Laughter.]

Mr. Morrison: I have only four or five minutes, and if hon. Members opposite deliberately occupy that time with laughter, it will prevent me being heard. They can do that if they like. [Laughter.] I can only say that if hon. Gentlemen are going to do that sort of thing, with the assent of their Front Bench, we shall have to do the same to them.
Persistent reference has been made to the Morris Committee, which dealt with the problem of the bombed sites of public houses. They have really nothing to do with this case. The Committee were concerned with bombed public houses in built-up areas, whereas this Bill is concerned with public houses which are not bombed and which are not in built-up


areas. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted from the Report which said:
In our opinion for establishments of such different character and location there is room for diversity in view and in practice in all such matters as the architecture and siting of licensed premises, and their number and size, their amenities and the catering facilities. offered.
That was quoted as a case for opposition to the Bill. Lower down on the same page it was stated that in rural districts near Carlisle they noted with pleasure new or reconstructed village inns which replaced one or more unsatisfactory licensed houses and were designed to retain or recreate attractive features of some of the old British inns which in their design seemed to reflect something of the sociability and companionship to be found within.
A great agitation has been going on and much correspondence has passed through the post. I have had a lot myself. I think that a good deal of this postal pressure is artificial. I will give the House one piece of evidence which came to my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). I quote from what a licensed publican wrote to him:
I have been instructed to forward enclosed to you. Personally I would prefer to leave it to the Government whether pubs should be State-owned or not. They do not seem to be making a bad job of this country.
He added this:
I risk my livelihood in writing to you in this manner but at least I am conscientious.
That is the type of agitation which is going on.

I wish to say in conclusion that there have been various meetings of the trade, and one gentleman, Alderman A. J. Dyer, O.B.E., Chairman of the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade "has told the Government bluntly," says the "Morning Advertiser"
that the trade, hitherto non-political, will not hesitate to act on political lines if necessary.
Let me in all seriousness say this last word to the trade. I am just old enough to remember in my youth the Liberal Licensing Bill and the by-elections, including Peckham and the Liberal allegation that every public house was a Tory Committee room. If the trade is going to revive those conditions, they will find a lot of mixed customers in their public houses and it will not be good. Secondly, I say, that if, as I hope will not be the case, this trade is going to make itself the instrument of a political party—[Interruption]—if this trade is going to make itself, according to this declaration, a party political instrument and turn every public house into—[Interruption.]—If that is so [Interruption.] The Opposition will get this back in good time—[Interruption.] If that is so, then I venture to say that the trade will be ill-advised and will be inviting a policy which it does not want.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 307; Noes, 203.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blackburn, A. R
Colfick, P.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blenkinsop, A
Collindridge, F


Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V
Blyton, W R
Collins, V J


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bottomley, A G.
Colman, Miss G M


Allen, Scholefield(Crewe)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cook, T F.


Alpass, J H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Braddock. T (Mitcham)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N. W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Bramall, E. A.
Corlett, Dr. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Brook, D (Halifax)
Crawley, A


Austin, H. Lewis
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cullen, Mrs. A


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, George (Belper)
Daggar, G.


Ayles, W H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daines, P


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Bacon, Miss A
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Baird, J.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Balfour, A
Carmichael, James
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S W.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A J
Castle, Mrs B A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Barstow, P G.
Chamberlain, R. A
Davies, S. O (Merthyr)


Barton, C.
Champion, A. J.
Deer, G.


Battley, J. R.
Chetwynd, G. R
Diamond, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cluse, W. S
Dobbie, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Cobb, F. A
Dodds, N N


Benson, G.
Cocks, F. S.
Donovan, T.


Binns, J
Coldrick, W.
Driberg, T. E. N.




Dye, S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Royle, C


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Leslie, J. R,
Scolian, T.


Edelman, M.
Levy, B. W.
Segal, Dr. S


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Shackleton, E. A A


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lindgren, G. S
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W
Skeffington, A. M


Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T
Skinnard, F W.


Fairhurst, F
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Farthing, W. J
McGovern, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E
Mack, J D.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Solley, L. J.


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Follick, M.
McLeavy, F
Steele, T.


Foot, M M.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strauss, Rt Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)
Stress, Dr. B.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Stubbs, A. E


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Swingler, S.


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Gibbins, J.
Marquand, H. A.
Symonds, A L


Gibson, C. W
Mathers, Rt Hon. George
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gilzean, A
Messer, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morgan, Dr H. B.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morley, R.
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Grey, C. F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Grierson, E
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Tiffany, S.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Murray, J. D
Titterington, M. F.


Guy, W. H.
Nally, W
Tolley, L.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Usborne, Henry


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Vernon, Maj W. F


Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Oliver, G. H
Walkden, E


Harrison, J.
Orbach, M.
Walker, G. H.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pagel, R. T
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Haworth, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Warbey, W. N


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Palmer, A. M. F
Watson, W. M


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.
Weitzman, D.


Hicks, G.
Paton,. J (Norwich)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A
Wells, W T.


Holman, P.
Peart, T. F
West, D G


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Perrins, W
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Horabin, T. L.
Piratin, P.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hoy, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Popplewell, E.
Wigg, George


Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, M. Philips
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Proctor, W. T
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Jay, D. P. T.
Pursey, Comdr. H
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Jenkins, R. H.
Ranger, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Johnston, Douglas
Rankin, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Willis, E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.
Wills Mrs. EA


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wise, Major F. J


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Richards, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Keenan, W
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Woods, G. S


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robens, A
Wyatt W.


King, E. M.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Yates, V. F


Kinley, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Young, Sri R. (Newton)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lavers, S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Zilliacus, K


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Rogers, G. H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, F (Hulme)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.







NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P G
Haughton, S. G.
Nicholson, G


Astor, Hon. M.
Head, Brig. A H
Nield, B (Chester)


Baldwin, A E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Sir C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Barlow, Sir J
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nutting, Anthony


Baxter, A. B
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Hogg, Hon Q
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Beechman, N. A
Hollis, M C.
Orr-Ewing, I L


Bennett, Sir P
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peake, Rt Hon. O


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Peto, Brig C H M


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A
Pitman, I J


Boothby, R.
Hudson, Rt Hon R. S (Southport)
Ponsonby, Col C E


Bossom, A. C
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N J
Poole, O. B S (Oswestry)


Bowen, R.
Hurd, A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col D


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Boyd-Carpenter J. A
Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C)
Raikes, H V


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)
Rayner, Brig R


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Jarvis, Sir J.
Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)


Brown, W J (Rugby)
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Renton, D


Bullock, Capt M
Jennings, R.
Roberts, H (Handsworth)


Burke, W A.
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Roberts, P G (Ecclesall)


Butcher, H. W,
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W
Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R A (S'ftr'n W'ld'n)
Keeling, E H.
Ropner. Col L


Byers, Frank
Kendall, W D
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F


Challen, C
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Savory, Prof D L


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon G
Scott, Lord W


Clarke, Col. R. S
Lancaster, Col C. G
Shephard, S (Newark)


Clifton-Brown, Lt,-Col G
Langford-Holt.
Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj R. J. E
Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Smiles, Lt-Col Sir W


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Smith E P (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt Rt Hon. H F C
Lennox-Boyd, A T
Smithers, Sir W


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Snadden, W M


Crowder, Capt John E
Linstead, H. N
Spearman, A C M


Cuthbert, W N
Lipson D L
Spence, H R


Darling, Sir W Y
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon O


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Low, A R W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universites)

Da la Bère, R
Lucas. Major Sir J
S'udholme, H G


Digby, S. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Sutcliffe H


Dodds-Parker, A D
Lyttelton, Rt Hon O
Taylor, C S (Eastbourne)


Donner, P W.
MacAndrew, Col Sir C
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col A. V G. (Penrith)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Teeling, William

Dower, E L G. (Caithness)
McCorquodale, Rt Hon M S
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Drayson, G B
MacDonald, Sir M (Inverness)
Thomas, J P L (Hereford)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Riehmond)
Macdonald, Sir P (I. Of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
McFarlane, C S
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Brig H. R
Thorp, Brigadier R A F


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J H (Galloway)
Touche, G C


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Turton, R. H


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Maolean, F H R. (Lancaster)
Tweedsmuir, Ladv


Erroll, F. J.
MacLeod, J.
Vane, W M F


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)
Wakefield, Sir W W


Foster, J G. (Northwich)
Macpherson. N. (Dumfries)
Walker-Smith, D


Fox, Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Ward, Hon G. R


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Manningham-Buller, R E
Watt, Sir G S Harvie


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marlowe, A A H.
Webbe, Sir H (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marsden, Capt A
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gage, C.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marshall, S H. (Sutton)
White, J B (Canterbury)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Williams, C (Torduay)


Gammans, L D
Mellor, Sir J
William, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Glyn, Sir R
Molson, A H E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Granville, E (Eye)
Moore, Lt-Col Sir T
Winterton. Rt Hon Earl


Gridley, Sir A
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
York, C


Grimston, R V
Morris Jones Sir H
Young, Sir, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison. Maj J G (Salisbury)



Harden, J. R. E
Morrison, Rt Hn W S (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C E
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn-and Mr. Drewe.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Neven-Spence. Sir B



Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee

of the whole House."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 295.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Beamish, Maj T. V H
Boothby, R


Astor, Hon M.
Beechman, N. A.
Bossom, A C


Baldwin, A E
Bennett, Sir P.
Bowen, R


Barlow, Sir J.
Birch, Nigel
Bower, N.


Baxter, A. B.
Boles, Lt-Col D C (Wells)
Boyd-Carpenter, J A.




Braithwaile, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig, C. H. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Byers, Frank
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V.


Carson, E.
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R


Challen, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Channon, H
Keeting, E. H.
Renton, D.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Conant, Maj R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C
Langford-Holt, J.
Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cal. O E
Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Ropner, Col. L


Crowder, Capt. John E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ross, Sir R D (Londonderry)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.

Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Savory, Prof. D. L


Davidson, Viscountess
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, Lord W.


De la Bère, R.
Lipson. D. L.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Digby, S. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Donner, P. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Smith E. P. (Ashford)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lucas, Major Sir J
Smithers, Sir W.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden W. M.


Drayson, G B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Spence H. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
MeCallum, Maj. D.
Stanley; Rt. Hon. O


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Eccles, D. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. Of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McFarlane, C. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sutcliffe H


Erroll, F. J.
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
Maclean, F H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacLeod, J.
Teeling, William


Fox, Sir G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Gage, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R A F


Gatbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Touche, G. C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Gammans, L. D
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gates, Maj. E. E
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Granville, E. (Eye)
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Grimston, R. V.
Moore, LI.-Col. Sir T.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Harden, J. R. E
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Watt Sir G. S. Harvie


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, Sir D (Fareham)

Haughton, S. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
White, J B. (Canterbury)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Naven-Spenee; Sir B
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Nicholson, G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Hogg, Hon. Q
Nutting, Anthony
York, C.


Hollis, M C.
Odey, G W.
Young. Sir A S L. (Partick)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H



Hope, Lord J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howard, Hon. A
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Asland, Sir Richard
Benson, G
Carmichael, James


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Berry, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V.
Beswick, F
Chamberlain, R. A


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Binns, J
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, A. R
Chetwynd, G. R


Alpass, J H.
Blenkinsop, A
Cobb, F. A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Blyton, W R.
Cocks, F. S


Attewell, H. C.
Bottomley, A. G.
Coldrick, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Collick, P.


Austin, H. Lewis
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.(L'pl. Exch'ge)
Collindridge, F


Awbery, S S.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collins, V. J


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bramall, E. A.
Colman, Miss G. M


Bacon, Miss A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cook, T. F.


Baird, J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)


Balfour, A
Brown, George (Belper)
Corlett, Dr. J


Barnes, Rt Hon A. J
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crawley, A


Barstow, P G
Bruce, Maj. D, W. T
Cullen, Mrs. A


Barton, C.
Burke, W A.
Daggar, G.


Battley, J. R.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Daines, P.


Beshervaise, A. E
Callaghan, James
Davies, Edward (Burslem)







Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W
Royle, C


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M
Sargood, R


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J
Scollan, T


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lavers, S.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Lawson, Rt Hon. J J
Shackleton, E. A A.


Deer, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Granville


Diamond, J
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dobbie, W.
Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Shawcross, Rt Hon Sir H. (St Helens)


Dodds, N. N
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P


Donovan, T
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J


Dumpleton, C. W
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Skeffington, A M


Dye, S.
Logan, D. G
Skinnard, F. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Longden, F.
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)


Edelman, M.
McAdam, W
Snow, J. W


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T
Solley, L. J.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGovern, J
Steele, T.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mack, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.
Swingler, S.


Fairhurst, F
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O


Farthing, W. J
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Symonds, A. L.


Fernyhough, E.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Field, Capt. W. J
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Foot, M. M.
Marquand, H. A
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Forman, J. C.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W.
Tiffany, S


Gibbins, J.
Moody, A. S.
Timmons, J.


Gibson, C. W
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Titterington, M. F.


Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.
Tolley, L.


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mort, D. L
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Moyle, A.
Usborne, Henry


Grenfell, D. R
Murray, J. D
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Grey, C. F.
Nally, W.
Viant, S. P.


Grierson, E.
Naylor, T. E.
Walkden, E.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Walker, G. H.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Warbey, W. N.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oldfield, W. H
Watson, W. M.


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F.
West, D. G


Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Parkin, B. T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Harrison, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pearson, A.
Wigg, George


Haworth, J.
Peart T. F.
Wilcook, Group-Capt C. A. B


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Perrins, W.
Wilkes, L.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Piratin, P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Herbison, Miss M.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Hobson, C. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Price M. Philips
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Horabin, T. L.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Hoy, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Willis, E.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Randall, H. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ranger, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Rankin, J.
Woods, G. S


Irving, W. J. (Tottenhom, N.)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Wyatt, W.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jenkins, R. H.
Richards, R.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Johnston, Douglas
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Zilliacus, K


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Robens, A.



Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Gorenwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Mr. Popplewell and


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R
Mr. Wilkins.


Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend State management to new towns and adjoining areas and to make further provision as respects State management districts, to provide for the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, and to make provision for other matters, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act in the State management of the liquor trade in the existing State management districts, in new towns and in adjoining areas, and the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Secretary of State arising therefrom;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland."—[Mr. Ede.]

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The importance of this Money Resolution has been enormously increased by the not very wise speech of the Lord President, which has tended to show a possibility of widening this Resolution out of all proportion to what the more innocent people in the House thought something like 45 to 50 minutes ago. The Question I want to ask is this: precisely what estimates have the Treasury made of the sums which may be needed under paragraph (a) of this Money Resolution? These sums must be fairly considerable in that they apply to any possible new towns and also to the adjoining areas. The sums which many of us had in mind not very long ago have been extended because of the Lord President's speech, in which he referred to the possibility of leaving Carlisle as an experience on one side and experiments taking place in large industrial areas as well.
For that reason, I think it is far more important than ever that we should get from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Money Resolution some estimate of what the taxpayers of this country may

be called upon to hand over to this profligate Government in order to deal with this Bill which nobody wants, and which has caused such an appalling shrinkage in the brutal Government majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although I am deeply grateful for the encouragement I am receiving from hon. Members opposite, I hope it will not take the form of a further interruption because, Major Milner, I am trying to help you to get this business through.
Could we have some explanation of Paragraph (b). Under that paragraph, apparently, we have to pay certain allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland. Before we grant any sum of money for that purpose, we would like to know, as far as the Government are capable of finding out, precisely how much money will be required, and by what number these courts will be increased. I am sure that before they come in on a Bill of this sort, the Treasury take very great care to work out these details. If the right hon. Gentleman is properly briefed, they will have been, able to tell him what are the increases. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a knowing look on his face, and I am sure that he will be able to answer that question. even if the Treasury cannot.
There are two questions I wish to ask as far as the estimates are concerned. The first is whether any allowance has been made for the vast extension of this scheme, which must mean a vast sum of money. The second is how are we going to finance the actual building up of this new trade and industry into which the Government propose to enter? Before we grant this money, can we have any sort of authority from the Government to show whether the money, which we must regard as an investment, will be a paying investment or otherwise? If I could have an answer to those questions, even though I dislike the Resolution intensely, I might not be forced to vote against it.

10.29 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), would like some further information about this Money Resolution. As the House is aware, we have heard very little from the representatives of Scotland on the


Treasury Front Bench with regard to this important Measure. This may be a suitable opportunity for one of them to say something about it. I would remind the House that there are three existing areas involved in this Money Resolution. One of them, Carlisle, is in England, and the other two State-managed areas are in Scotland. It is a matter of some considerable importance to Scottish representatives that the position should in some way be clarified.
I am in the difficult position that I have been asked by some hon. Members why it is that expenses are being paid in Scotland when it appears that no such solatium, or whatever description we give to these payments, is being paid in England. I shall be glad to have an answer to that question. I feel sure that the Secretary of State, anxious to indicate that he has secured something for Scotland, which is very rare, may care to tell why he has been able to secure the payment of allowances to members of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland, though his right hon. Friend has been unable to make any similar equivalent provision for those who undertake not dissimilar duties in England. We should be gratified to have his views on this point.
For the rest, I share my hon. Friend's opinion regarding the vagueness generally of the Money Estimate. It may be that I am seeking a meticulous precision which cannot be achieved, but let us know how much, within a few thousands, this involves. What kind of amount of money is State management going to entail over a period of five years? There must be some kind of estimate. This is a planned society in which we move. It would not be unfair to ask those who favour a planned society how much it is going to cost. I support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay. He rarely requires any support, but I support the proper curiosity which he evinces and await the reply which very properly should be made by someone representing the Government.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I wish to reinforce strongly what my hon. Friends have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling). If I may seek to break a lance with him, he seems to think that we in

Scotland are going to get some increased benefit under this Money Resolution in comparison with the authorities in England. I at once agree with my hon. Friend that we in Scotland should not he greedy. I do not think we have ever been accused of being greedy throughout our long history.

Sir W. Darling: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we can reasonably anticipate getting a little more than eleven-eightieths in this case?

Mr. McKie: That is the point I was coming to. My hon. Friend rarely exhibits the impatience which he has exhibited tonight. We in Scotland have not been over-greedy in the past, but we are certainly always willing to obtain any crumbs of comfort that fall from the rich man's table—on this occasion, from the Socialist Government's table. I think my hon. Friend, on further reflection, would agree with me that if Scotland were to secure some slight benefit over England on this occasion, we should not he gaining out of turn.
Having endeavoured to deal with that, let me say how much I appreciated the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). We Scottish Members on the Opposition side wish to hear from the Government a little more about the way in which this Resolution is drafted. Why is it necessary to make this special mention of licensing courts and courts of appeal in Scotland? I see that the Principality of Wales is not singled out for special mention. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate-General, who is probably in a better position to answer this legal point, will enlighten us. Is it that they are afraid that we in Scotland, who in the past—certainly in the last two centuries since the Union—have been more law-abiding than the Sassenachs— I see you looking at me, Major Milner, and I assure you I am going to keep sedulously and strictly within the rules of Order. In the last 250 years we have been certainly as law-abiding as the citizens of England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) can point out, if he wishes to do so. where I am wrong. I do want to know whether it is intended, by making this special invidious mention of the licensing courts


and courts of appeal in Scotland, to cast any aspersion upon the law-abiding qualities of the citizens of the North. I hope that, whoever comes to reply—and I very much hope that it will be the Secretary of State for Scotland—we shall be informed why it has been necessary to introduce this special form of words.
Mention has been made of the Carlisle scheme, which was introduced some 30 or 25 years ago. I think you will agree with my remarks, Major Milner, because you, a Yorkshireman, will remember that that scheme was not altogether a success. We are now going to introduce something of that kind again. Many people who are as old as I am, though I am not one of the oldest Members of the House, will have considerable apprehensions. Speaking as one from the Scottish side of the Border—and I think the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) will agree with me—we certainly do not want anything of that kind reintroduced. I buttress what I have said on the general principle, the invidious mentioning of the licensing court and courts of appeal in Scotland in this Money Resolution, and call attention to the dire failure of the Carlisle scheme. I now invite whoever is to reply for the Government to deal with these points. I hope many of my hon. Friends will follow me. If they do not, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be in a position to reply to the matters I have raised.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: It is certainly a most interesting position for me, as Secretary of State for Scotland, to have to deal with the many points put forward apparently for Scotland by hon. Members opposite. At one time they are complaining that Scotland is not getting a fair deal, and now apparently they are complaining because Scotland is having some privileges. It is difficult to know how to adjudicate. To some extent this appears to be a privilege for Scotland, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise it and accept it as such without complaining too much; otherwise the British House of Commons may regret having taken this action.
It arises from the different type of licensing courts in Scotland. There are four types of courts affected. They are

the burgh licensing court, consisting of magistrates of the burgh; the burgh court of appeal, consisting of magistrates and an equal number of justices of the peace; the county licensing courts, which consist of specially elected county councillors and an equal number of elected justices; and the county courts of appeal, which consist half of county councillors and half of justices of the peace. Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, provides for the payment of expense allowances for members of local authorities for approved duties.
The Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace recommended, in Chapter 7 of its Report, which was published in July, 1948, that expense allowances should be paid to justices of the peace for expenses incurred in their duties. The position is that in these mixed courts provision must be made so that all the members shall be paid on the same basis. Subsection (2) of the Bill provides that the cost of these allowances shall be borne by the town councils and the county councils under the Licensing Act, 1903.
The question was raised as to the cost of these allowances. To the best of our information it should not exceed £1,500 a year, because these courts seldom meet more than twice a year, and in most cases the meetings do not last more than four hours. I think that that answers the point which has been made, and I hope that hon. Members who appear to be so interested in Scotland will agree that the Government have treated Scotland well.

Mr. Ede: I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and to say that no alteration of policy was announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President this evening. We are here dealing with the new towns and one of their distinguishing characteristics we hope, will be that each will contain an appropriate industrial area having regard to the size of the town concerned. That led to the allusion he was making that we desire these new towns to show bow industry can be carried on in congenial surroundings without the slums and the dirt which we associate with so much of the industrial area which grew up during the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth, centuries.
With regard to adjoining areas, the brewers themselves recognise that if any planning is to take place they want a surrounding protecting ring to prevent any destruction of the planned scheme by the introduction of a few houses on the perimeter of the area that they are planning. One of the deplorable things which happened between the two wars was the way in which some benighted local authorities had housing schemes from which they excluded all forms of social organisation; no pubs, no clubs, and sometimes even no churches. The result was that around such towns some of the land acquired extraordinary values because it was available for licensing purposes, and licensing schemes grew up which had no relation to any proper sort to the social needs of the area.
In the schemes I think that it is necessary to have a small fringe around—it may vary in width, but I understand it would not mean more than a quarter of a mile—in which it will be necessary to have a plan for the central residential part rounded off and protected from being spoilt by the erection of public houses not in accordance with the general scheme. I would hope that, in most cases, this would not be a very expensive matter because most of the new towns will be surrounded by what we have come to call in modern planning parlance "green belts," inside of which it is unusual for any building of this type to be allowed, and therefore I do not think this will be a very expensive matter so far as the new towns are concerned.
So far as cost comes into the matter, and whether State management will be a paying concern, I would point out that, after all, the capital sunk in Carlisle was paid off out of the results of the undertaking in 11 years; which is a satisfactory financial conclusion for an enterprise of this kind. The profits are announced annually to the House, and I see no reason to anticipate that the results of these schemes will be less satisfactory from the financial point of view than the schemes which have been undertaken in the past. I hope the hon. Member for Torquay, with this explanation, will feel the same.

Mr. C. Williams: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he give an idea of the total amount?

Mr. Ede: No, quite clearly I cannot do so at the moment. This will be a matter of comparatively slow development. It is not like Carlisle, where the whole of the houses were required in a very short space of time. These houses will be built as the towns go up, and the rate of progress will depend on the availability of labour and materials. I can assure the hon. Member that we have no reason to fear that we shall be less successful in these enterprises than we have been in the others.

Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer and, of course, I can realise that, as in all other financial estimates we have had in this Parliament, he has not the haziest idea of what the total amount will be. That loose standard of finance is now accepted as one of the troubles of the present Government and one of the reasons why our credit is so low. The other thing for which I thank him is for informing me that which I knew—that the capital for Carlisle was paid off in 11 years; but I should like to point out to him that in those days one had financially a sound Government which was of either Liberal or Conservative origin, whereas this Government, when it nationalises things, always seems to make a loss. Though I admit any reasonable Government would make it pay, the chances with this Government are very slim indeed.
As far as the Scots position is concerned, all I can say is that I cannot see why the Scots people should have these special paid officials. I can understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland explained the position to the satisfaction of Scotsmen and that they get away with it. I should like, on a suitable occasion, to see this financial legislation applied only to Scotland and both it and the Bill to cut out England. Let us try this on Scotland and not on England at all.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RECALL OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE PENSIONERS BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Occasion for and period of
recall.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 23, at end insert:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in Section seventy-six of the Army Act or Section seventy-six of the Air Force Act any such person shall, if on his recall he so requires, be so enlisted for the said period in accordance with the provisions of Section eighty of the Army Act or Section eighty of the Air Force Act (which provide for the procedure on enlistment) as the case may require, and thereupon he shall not be deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection.

10.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a matter which need detain the House long, but it is of interest and importance to the main concern of this Bill. The Bill relates to men who have been voluntary soldiers or airmen, and may require from them, in an emergency, a second term of service. There is no doubt that, should the emergency arise, the great majority of these men would volunteer to come forward and give that service, statute or no statute. It is, therefore, fitting that they should have an opportunity to express their willingness by entering into a second form of enlistment in the usual form of voluntary enlistment, instead of becoming simply men deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of the wording of this Bill.
It will give them the right to say that they have always been in fact and in law willing soldiers, and we have every reason to believe that that is not regarded by them as being a point of negligible importance. I mentioned, when this Bill was passing through this House, in reply to an inquiry by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that it was the desire of the Government to make an arrangement of this kind. There was, however, a legal difficulty, in that the Army Act and the Air Force Act did not make any provision for enlistment of indefinite duration, such as the length of time of an emergency. The proposed Amendment removes the legal obstacle, and makes it possible to enshrine the Government's intentions in this Bill. It

is an attractive and almost a romantic Amendment, and I commend it to the House.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lords in this Amendment. It is definitely an improvement to the Bill, in that it gives a pensioner the right to carry on his service as a volunteer, as he originally served. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) will appreciate what the Government have done to carry out the intention, which, I think, he first put forward in the debate on this Bill in the House. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more, except to say that we welcome the Amendment, and hope that if this Measure is ever brought into operation, steps will be taken to inform the recalled pensioners of the option given under it. It may be that, in the absence of any instructions at that time, this provision will not be drawn to their attention to enable these people to avail themselves of it. If so, this provision will not avoid the irritation which will be created.
I hope it will be many a long year and perhaps never, before this Measure will be called into operation; I hope the circumstances will not arise that make it necessary. I cannot ask the hon. Member to give an undertaking that will bind him and all his successors for the years to come to insure that the information is brought to the attention of those affected, but I can ask him to take steps to see that when the pensioner is recalled he is notified of the option given him.

Orders of the Day — CLOCKS AND WATCHES (MAXIMUM PRICES)

10.54 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 5th November, 1948, entitled the Clocks and Watches (Maximum Prices) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2421), a copy of which was presented on 8th November, be annulled.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade has created in my mind, after the Adjournment Debate we had the other night, such a spirit of sweet reasonableness that I am prompted to hope he will not relapse


tonight into obduracy on the very reasonable suggestion we have to make on this Statutory Instrument.
Why do we on this side of the House oppose this order? What are our objections to it, and what do we suggest should be done in its place. I cannot pretend that many hon. Members will have studied this complicated order in considerable detail, and, therefore, it may be convenient if I outline briefly what the order does. It fixes the maximum prices at which new spring-wound watches can be sold in this country. It does so by two quite different methods. Under the second schedule over a limited range of these articles it specifies the maximum price at which they can be sold. But over a larger range it makes use of a much more complicated mechanism, because it provides different percentages which shall apply respectively to manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers, and according to their circumstances and the work they carry out, and the service they give, the percentage varies.
Finally, the order comes into operation on 1st January, 1949. I know that this order has given the Board of Trade a great deal of trouble because the situation is a very complicated one, complicated by the variety of articles it has to cover and complicated for example by the many systems which the Swiss manufacturers employ to sell their goods in this country, by agents, travelling representatives or shipment direct to importers over here. Indeed, the order is as complicated as the interior of those articles it covers.
What is the catalogue of objections I have to this order? First, there is the very complication of the order itself: its method of setting out the percentages in columns and lumping them together makes its very difficult for a member of the trade to understand what percentage he is entitled to. For example, the term "retail customer" is used alongside and in juxtaposition to "wholesaler." One would have thought this meant the retailer, but it does not. It means a member of the public, and why a member of the public cannot be so described I do not understand. I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the retail customer is not the public but the retailer. If so he is in conflict with the Department. I took the trouble to telephone

them to find out what the retail customer meant in this case, and they informed me it was a member of the public.
Another complication is that since the wholesaler commonly buys his goods from the importer, and since the same percentage is shown for importer and wholesaler, where the article is purchased from the wholesaler there is doubt whether the wholesaler is entitled to all the commission or if he gets half of the commission or what happens to it. The trade do not understand what the order means. I who have a nodding acquaintance with these orders realise it is most complicated, and if we, who have a slight knowledge of them, have difficulty in understanding them, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to visualise the amount of time and puzzling wasted by small traders up and down the country.
The next objection is that the order continues the cost-plus system although I agree it is in a limited way. Where a manufacturer imports a foreign movement and proceeds to encase it in a British case, he is called upon to show the cost of the imported movement, the cost of what he is obliged to do in order to make it into a finished article, and the cost of labour in so doing, and to those three added together, a percentage is added. That is the continuance of that unhappy and indeed vicious system of cost-plus which I think all sections of the House have agreed should be abandoned as soon as possible. While it may not have a tendency to exaggerate the cost at any rate there is no incentive to keep the price down as low as possible. It also involves the retailers of these articles in a complex costing and bookkeeping system.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Colonel Hutchison: I feel there is no hon. Member of this House more gratified to find that they have not been counted out than the hon. Gentleman who has taken the trouble to come and answer this serious question and who thereby has been spared being called up on to come and give that information on another occasion.
Our next objection to the order resides in the fact that different prices under


this order will in fact become payable by the public for identically similar articles. In the case where the importer is also the retailer—and that applies in many of the large retail stores in this country—he is allowed to add a certain percentage; but where that same article is imported and passes through the importer to the wholesaler and the retailer, then quite a different percentage is added. So we get the paradox of a clock, for example, which costs £5 brought into the country selling for 180s., in the case of the retailer who imports direct—I am leaving out the Purchase Tax in this example—whereas the same clock, if it passes through the combination of the importer, wholesaler and retailer will sell at 233s. 4d. That is highly undesirable. Not only that, but it will involve the price control authorities in an inundation of complaints and queries.
It is no good for the hon. Gentleman to reply that the complicated chain of importer, wholesaler, retailer could cut down the rate of commission, because surely the order provides for reasonable and not excessive rates, and if they are pared down, it will result in one of the parties in the chain being left with something on which he cannot support himself. So, by Government regulation, there is a tendency for the wholesaler, who is probably the most vulnerable, to be driven out of business.
Another objection is that if you fix maximum prices of this kind there is a great tendency for those prices to be regarded as the normal prices. Some of the percentages are considerably greater than those the trade was used to charging in pre-war days—no doubt on g bigger turnover—and if the whole situation were freed, it would be found that the percentages would be no greater, and probably less. The next objection is that the retailer who gives after-sales service is allowed precisely the same percentage as the retailer who gives no such service, and who is probably a mushroom growth which has sprung up because of a shortage and washes his hands of the article once he has sold it. There is unfairness in treating these two types of retailer in the same way.
From this catalogue of objections I think the House will agree that if it is possible to abandon this order, it would be desirable to do so. What, then, is

the need for this order? It was originally devised to protect the public in a period of shortage from exploitation and excessive prices. But it is a complicated situation and a complicated order, and I believe that during the period of its gestation, while the order was being prepared and presented, the whole circumstances have changed. A year ago this order might have been necessary, but I am informed that now there is, if not a superabundance of these articles, at any rate a sufficiency in all except the highest-priced articles, and I have not noticed this Government being particularly solicitous to the type of people who buy the most expensive watches and clocks. I was informed by a wholesaler the other day that he was refusing deliveries of this sort of article, and hon. Members have only to look in the windows of shops and stores to discover that there is a pretty abundant supply of these things.
I contend that there is a good deal of evidence to support the view that this order is no longer necessary. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman to abandon it entirely. Let the price mechanism cut out all these unfairnesses, complications, and complaints, and let us return to the much more satisfactory way of regulated supply and demand. If the hon. Gentleman says that is not possible, I believe there is still something simpler which can be evolved within the order as it stands; that is to use the half-way house system in the second schedule, of merely fixing the maximum price and leaving the price mechanism to work out the percentages which each in the chain of suppliers is entitled to under the order by the process of supply and demand. The whole situation will be much simpler if the range of articles, which are provided for in the second schedule and to which maximum prices are attached, is extended sufficiently to allow the public to have a reasonable choice of the sort of things they want.
Of course, it will not cover them all. It is too complicated for any one schedule to cover all the watches and clocks which might be imported or manufactured in the country, but it can be extended to cover a sufficiency. Those which are left outside will either be more expensive or cheaper. If more expensive, now that the supply is sufficient, they will not be able to be sold; if cheaper, they will automatically tend to bring down the maximum


which would be applied to their competitors under the schedule.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree to annul this order. If he is not prepared to set the people free, he can at least set their time-pieces free. The time has come to wind up this control and I urge the hon. Gentleman to take this order away and destroy, or at least amend, it.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to second the Motion.
I am indeed glad to be able to second this Motion, thanks to the alertness of my colleagues behind me and in spite of the somewhat schoolgirlish intervention of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). This order stems from the last crisis but one which the Government indulged in; I am referring to the economic crisis of 1947, which is largely forgotten history today—we have been through such difficult times since then. Hon. Members may remember that of the many halfhearted measures which were to be introduced to combat that crisis, one was to control the prices of goods which it was expected would be in shorter supply on account of the increase in exports and on account of the greater volume of overtime working, which would result from the need for more goods for export, so that there would be larger wages in industry, people would spend them and this would drive up the prices of goods.
Amongst the measures introduced, there was offered to the House a wide range of measures of price control. Many of these were a long time coming through. In fact, the first batch did not become available for examination by Members of this House until early this year, and when they did appear they were repeatedly found to be so inapplicable to the circumstances of the time that they had to be withdrawn and a fresh batch introduced later. It is scarcely surprising that the order we are examining tonight should only now have made its appearance, more than a year after the development of the crisis which was thought to make such orders inevitable. Some of these measures may indeed have been justifiable in the autumn of 1947 or in the first month or two of this year, but circumstances have been changing rapidly, and in many classes of goods we now find a sufficiency of supplies, which renders price control unnecessary.
The full evil of the system of price control, however, which was illustrated by the first and second batches of orders, was that it perpetuated in peace time the system of cost-plus which was recently opposed by Members on all sides of the House as an inefficient and costly system of securing a limitation on profits. This present order is no exception. It perpetuates in the watch and clock industry the despised and discredited system of cost-plus by permitting margins of profits at various stages in the manufacture and distribution of a not-altogether essential article of civilisation.
I should like here to enter a proviso in regard to the second schedule to the order, which deals with the prices of British manufactured alarm clocks. Here the Board of Trade have introduced a simple system of maximum retail prices leaving the intervening stages to be worked out by the system of supply and demand and the relative pressures and falls of the interested groups. If there is still a shortage of British-made alarm clocks, then undoubtedly a straightforward price stop on the retail prices is the best way of keeping prices down.
My criticisms are directed to the first schedule and all its implications. That schedule imposes percentage increases or margins on imported watches and movements. It also imposes percentage margins for wholesalers, retailers, and others concerned, on imported movements which are afterwards cased in this country by British firms using either domestically manufactured cases or imported cases. The system outlined in the first schedule enables maximum prices to the public to be determined.
We have found in many other examples of price control that what should be the maximum price, in actual fact becomes the minimum price; and I do not think we shall find this particular class of product any exception to the general rule. We had remarkable figures given yesterday on the subject of vegetable prices, which showed that where the controlled prices were removed the prices of vegetables tended to fall, and did fall in most cases, including the prices for sprouts and celery and tomatoes. The case was that retailers tended to sell at the maximum prices, but as soon as the control was removed, the prices were subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, and in most cases


they fell below the previously permitted maxima.
Here, I submit to the Minister, is a similar case where the laws of supply and demand should be allowed to operate and thus allow prices to fall below the maxima permitted by this order, particularly because there is no real shortage in the country today of watches and clocks of most qualities. There may be a certain shortage of the very best qualities, but the Government have never shown themselves particularly solicitous about the purchasers of the very best. They have been more concerned with maintaining the low prices of the utility or cheap, even of the mediocre, trade—the cheap, trashy trade. Here we have a price control introduced which makes it very difficult to restore a free trade in the best qualities of watches, chronometers and clocks, and makes sure of a large, inflated and exaggerated profit margin for the purveyors of the cheap and trashy. I may say that the retailers and wholesalers are selling below the maximum prices, so that there is nothing for them to worry about in this order in regard to prices; but it does matter a very great deal to them, for this order imposes upon all traders a complicated and intricate system of invoicing to which all must subscribe, whether they are quoting the maximum prices or less. Thus there is to be for all traders a complicated system of invoicing, whether they require to be restrained by this order or not.
I submit that the order is unnecessary and that it is too late. If the trade have not raised any considerable objections to it, it is because they regard this as a white elephant. They will be operating well within the ceiling prices permitted by the order. It is indeed a white elephant, and I hope it will go away like the white elephant in the National Savings advertisements, because no one in the House. I believe, really wants it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Challen: The more one analyses this order, the more it becomes obvious that it is a complicated order and that there are many points of view from which one can approach it. I should like to ask the Minister how the order came to be made and with whom the Minister discussed the matter; because if he discussed it with the Committee

of the Association of Importers, I would point out that this consists mostly of those who deal in cheap watches and clocks, while importers of high-grade watches and clocks and the majority of the ordinary members take little interest in that association. This order does seem to aid and support the importers of cheap trash as against the importer of high-grade goods.
I am informed that five years ago, the trade entered into a gentleman's agreement with the Price Control Committee, and that that agreement has worked well; but during the last twelve months prices have fallen, while stocks have increased, and the buyers' market is becoming more pronounced. Prices are likely to fall more. But under this order the gross profit is the same for the importer of the cheap stuff as for the importer of the better grades, and both before and after sales, the importer of the good watch or clock has a much greater cost of service compared with the importer of the trash. Compared with better quality goods, the turnover of the cheap grades is enormous and so these importers can work on a much lower margin of gross profit. What is to be done to help the importer of the better grade of goods? What is the intention of this order? Is it to help the importer of rubbish, and if so, why?

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion for the annulment of this order for his reference to the reasonableness of tone of an earlier Debate. I assure him that the same reasonableness will prevail tonight; and I hope that he will reciprocate. I accept at once that the order is complicated, but it concerns a complex trade and we want to avoid undue interference with the normal trade practices. This order applies, for the first time, in the case of alarm clocks made in Britain, a definite statutory maximum price; but in the case of imported alarm clocks, and other clocks and watches within the scope of the order, there is little or no change in practice. We still have control of distribution margins.
In the case of clocks and watches, other than British-made alarm clocks—and the order refers to spring-wound, and not electric clocks—there was an arrangement


made seven years ago between the Horological Section of the London Chamber of Commerce and the Central Price Regulation Committee by which prices were fixed. What this order does, except in the case where there is a reduction in the distribution margin allowed, is to endorse that agreement which has been in operation successfully since 1941. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why it is necessary to have any price control. I think it is necessary to have price control because the supply of clocks and watches, other than alarm clocks which are rather in freer supply, is still short. Supplies are less than one-third of prewar and if we do not have some kind of control, we shall find that demand will be such that it may even rocket prices. What I have tried to do, in consultation with those who should have knowledge of the industry, is to fix a very fair price so that the maximum charge does give a reasonable profit without permitting prices to rise.
Then a suggestion was made, that we ought to fix a maximum price, as in the case of the second schedule, for the first schedule. That cannot be done. In the case of alarm clocks there is a more or less standardised production and types are so few that it is possible to fix a maximum price by a set figure. In the case of imported clocks, watches and movements, they vary. It would be almost impossible to fix a maximum price. One has to fix it on the basis of distribution margins and therefore we feel the method in this order is fairer than if we tried to adopt the alternative suggestion put forward. We feel that the fixing of cash maximums would only push up prices and allow unreasonable profit. Though reference has been made to traders who are not so respectable, the industry does attract the best types, and the order has been framed in this way because we have most reliable people to interpret and work it out.
The point was raised about the cost-plus system and it was suggested that this is bad. It is not always bad. In the war it did have some advantages, but I am prepared to agree that for the purposes of the order it is not desirable to have a cost-plus system. In fact we are not having it within the order. In the order what is happening is that within the distribution margin the wholesaler and retailer have to count not only the profit, but the expense as well. If distribution methods are

made more efficient it means a higher net profit is made, and therefore there is an incentive to improve distribution methods. It cannot be said there is the same drawback as in the cost-plus system where there is a tendency to inflate prices and get a higher percentage of net profit.

Mr. Erroll: Surely the British manufacturer or the British caser of imported movements, can inflate the manufacturing cost just as he likes and get a bigger sum on each percentage margin at the wholesale and retail stages?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that can be done because there is this percentage margin and one must not go above that. That is the purpose of the order. If the House wishes, I will go into it in detail, but I do not think it is really necessary. We do fix a percentage figure and that tends to limit prices. There are two different kinds of distribution margins: in the case of high-grade watches and clocks the percentage is higher, and there are good reasons for that.

Mr. Erroll: Surely the percentage of something that is not fixed cannot be a fixed sum? When the costs of manufacture are increased, the total of the percentage margin allowed must accordingly be greater?

Mr. Bottomley: The cost price is where the question of supply and demand operates. It is true that the basis of the price of a clock or watch is the manufacturer's price, but this does not come into the order. This order operates only in the case of wholesale or retail distribution margins.

Colonel Hutchison: The manufacturer, according to the order, is the man who purchases the product uncased and then adds his own direct labour costs, and on that he is allowed a percentage.

Mr. Bottomley: He cannot add his labour costs for the purpose of bringing the article into the higher grade where a larger margin of profit on distribution is allowed. If we took into account the labour costs, it would inflate the price, but for this purpose it is not permitted.
We cannot accept the suggestion to annul this order. The trade did have an opportunity to put their point of view earlier, but have only now made two suggestions which we feel are reasonable and which we should try to meet in some way. Their first suggestion is in regard to the invoicing. They would like the


system simplified, and as the industry is a reputable one, we think that we should allow this to be done, although it might lead to abuses.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Even the Government are not allowed to amend an order any more than the Opposition. They can withdraw it and then bring it back amended. Would it not be much better to take this order back and produce a better drafted one?

Mr. Bottomley: We cannot do that, but we will try to find some means to meet the reasonable requests of the industry.

Mr. Taylor: How can that be done?

Mr. Bottomley: How the invoices are made out is an administrative matter.
The trade's second suggestion is in regard to the discount of 5 per cent. which is allowed. In certain cases, we have said that 2½ per cent. of that must be handed over to the retailer, but we think that a reasonable case has been made out for the 5 per cent. to be paid all round. We are prepared to do that and to make the 5 per cent. apply to all. I hope that, having met the trade to this extent, Members will accept the order.

Sir John Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has said that the first point can be dealt with administratively, but would not the last point require an amending order, and as this order does not come into operation until 1st January next, would not the better course be to withdraw this order and make a fresh one, rather than have two orders, one amending the other?

Mr. Bottomley: No. If the matters can be dealt with administratively, well and good. If not, we will make an amending order which will become operative at the same time as the main order. In the interests of tidiness, I think it would be better to allow this order to go through and then, if necessary, to make an amending order later.

Colonel Hutchison: Before I withdraw the Motion, I want to say that I am not at one with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that there is any real risk in abandoning this order altogether. I think from the evidence and from what I have been told by the trade, we can see there is a sufficiency of these articles just now. We have been asked on many

occasions by the Government what controls we would abandon. Here is one. The Government have for their part emphasised that they were not anxious to keep controls on for control's sake, but here is a case in which they are doing so.
However, the hon. Gentleman has shown a spirit of accommodation. He has been in touch with the trade itself. They have made certain suggestions and I ask him, when he is considering these, to consider what has been said from this side of the House. He has suggested an amending order to come into operation at the same time as this order. I think by far the cleanest and tidiest and most satisfactory way would be to withdraw this order and to substitute a new one altogether, giving effect to what we have requested. Having said that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion. by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EASTERN EUROPE (TRADE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Solley: I desire to call the attention of the House to the problems of trade between Eastern and Western Europe and the part this country can play in a speedy and happy solution of that problem, especially in the light of our serious economic situation and the difficulties of getting ample supplies of food for our people. A report was submitted on 14th August, 1948, by the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe on the potentialities for increasing trade and accelerating industrial development in Europe. This document may be of historic importance. The report spoke of the central immediate problem of what might be conveniently termed the Western group, as being one of overcoming large deficits of the balance of payments, especially with dollar areas, and that of what might be conveniently described as the Eastern European countries as being the most rapidly developing industrialisation of that group. The report stated that the excess of expenditure over receipts on current account in the non-European countries in 1947 was 7,500 million dollars and that the deficit was unlikely to be substantially reduced this year.
If Europe is not to experience a sharp fall in the standard of living—and for this purpose England is part of Europe—there must be a tremendous increase in heavy industrial exports, and Europe must seek to develop imports from non-dollar countries and, for this purpose, the mobilisation and increasing of exportable surpluses in manufactured goods. It would appear from this report that the minimum amount that would be needed to come from Eastern Europe would be of the order of 3,000 million dollars, and that is on the minimum basis of supposition that Western Europe's import needs would not exceed the pre-war level, or, alternatively, that Western Europe would be enabled to earn dollars directly or indirectly in the amounts assumed in the Marshall Aid calculations. Putting it bluntly, unless trade between Eastern and Western Europe increases five-fold by the time that Marshall Aid is planned to expire, Europe will be faced with a most substantial drop in its standard of living.
The report indicated that imports of cereals before the war amounted to 20 per cent. from Eastern Europe to Western Europe; and that today the figure is 2 per cent.; also, that in the case of raw materials, for example timber, the figure was 77 per cent., but now is 44 per cent. The report made clear that the problems of the Eastern European countries and the Western European countries are complementary in this sense, that the Western European countries need the raw materials and food which Eastern Europe can supply; and Eastern Europe needs the machinery necessary for increasing the productivity of its land and increasing the standard of living of its people. In other words, unless Western Europe and Great Britain are prepared to assist Eastern Europe in increasing the productivity of Eastern Europe, then the increase of trade between Eastern and Western Europe which is envisaged in this report will not be achieved and we shall all be faced with a substantial and serious drop in our standard of living.
I ask this question: what are the Government doing to assist in this expansion of trade? This is not the occasion to talk of foreign policy, although it is impossible to exclude considerations of foreign policy from this matter. It seems to me that the attitude taken by the Government

in demanding as a condition precedent to achieving comprehensive trade agreements between this country and Central and Eastern European countries, a settlement by way of compensation for nationalisation in those countries of British industrial interests, is making it extremely difficult to reach a satisfactory solution of this problem. Take Roumania as an example. I submit that His Majesty's Government are, in fact, putting the interests of Shell, Unilever, and similar combines before the interests of the people of this country. The Government are acting as the financial agent of these monopolies.
It is all very well for the Government to say that they must protect the interests of British property. If this property were national property, and the Government were in a sense trustees for the British people of that property, there would be no challenging the authenticity of that argument. But, in fact, the British people are being blackmailed by Shell and Unilever, in this sense: they are saying to the people in my constituency, "You cannot have petrol from Roumania, or beef, or fats, or timber, because before we can get a trade agreement with them we, the shareholders of Shell and Unilever, must be satisfied in full with shekels for our pre-war holdings in Roumania."
Whatever may be said about the ethics of that sort of thing from the capitalist point of view, it is wrong that that sort of demand should be sustained by His Majesty's Government in the light of our international trade difficulties. Be it observed that these countries do not desire to escape the demand for payment of compensation. They have made statutory provision for it. All I ask the Government to say is that they will not make it a condition precedent to the achievement of comprehensive trade agreements with these countries that there shall be agreement on the compensation for nationalised properties.
Another difficulty to which the Government ought to pay attention is the result of the refusal to guarantee deliveries under trade agreements—for example, the agreement with the Soviet Union. According to my information, the Soviet Government have only been able to make firm contracts in respect of some 40 per cent. of the amounts envisaged by the contracts, whereas they have delivered slightly more than they had contracted to


deliver. I understand that of the group of 28 headings of goods which the Soviet Government were to place contracts for in this country, there are some 18 headings still uncontracted for. That is most unsatisfactory, and is not the way to achieve better trading relations with the Soviet Union.
A further difficulty is the operation of Section 117 (d) of the Foreign Assistance Act, 1948, of the United States. That affects us here by way of the Marshall Aid Agreement. It says:
The Administrator is directed to refuse delivery in so far as practicable to participating countries of commodities which go into the production of any commodity for delivery to any non-participating European country which would be refused export licences to those countries by the United States in the interests of national security.
A Committee has been set up, and is sitting in London, under the pressure of the United States, with English and American representatives, and I understand with the Minister of Defence as chairman, which seeks to control British exports to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This committee has black-listed items which, it is suggested, must not go to the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, and this is being done under American pressure under the Act I have quoted, and allegedly because of security reasons. The representative of Poland at the General Assembly of the United Nations this year made clear what was the American conception of security, and therefore one that is, no doubt, operating in the committee I have referred to. He said that the United States had prevented Poland from purchasing the following commodities on security grounds: cotton linctus and synthetic resin, tubes for condensers, radio lamps, apparatus for measurement, gramophone disks for recording, needles for the textile industry, ball bearings and other articles.
I would say it is infamous that a foreign country should seek to dictate to this country what sort of trade we are to do with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and say that such-and-such an article is on the security list—as I have no doubt they have said, though this House apparently is not to be given the information. We have to seek information from Poland that articles like gramophone discs and needles for the textile industry are on the list. That, in my submission, is not the way to further

trade between this country and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
I cannot at this stage go into the details of every country. I have already mentioned Roumania and perhaps I may say a word or two about that country, since I have been there. It would interest hon. Members to know that wheat which Roumania had for disposal, has been sold, not to this country, but to Italy, to Egypt, to Syria and certain other countries. It would be very interesting to know how it is that those apparently impoverished countries are able to make bids for and secure Roumanian wheat, while we are prepared to allow ourselves to be blackmailed by supplies from dollar sources. It may well be that our inability to buy Roumanian wheat is not unconnected with the actions of the assistant commercial secretary at our Embassy in Bucharest.
As regards another country, Czechoslovakia, I would commend to the Government the statement made in the December issue of the "Monthly Bulletin" issued by the Czechoslovak-British Chamber of Commerce in London. The statement is made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade, and it arises directly from the position which Czechoslovakia occupied before the war. It will be remembered that in those days Czechoslovakia exported large quantities of surplus industrial products to nearly all the world markets, and in so doing used German ships and German commercial houses, and that it was through Germany, that Czechoslovakia regularly bought supplies of raw materials and met her industrial requirements.
The suggestion made by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade that Czechoslovakia should allocate to this country their entire export surplus, which she would reserve for Western Europe, and that Czechoslovakia would make use of existing British export and sales facilities for selling these goods on the world markets, is an extremely interesting one. It comes to this, that British shippers and confirming houses would gain from the additional business possibilities thus supplied by Czechoslovakia, British export industry would lose what we must confess can be a very dangerous possible, and even actual, competitor on the world markets, Czechoslovak products would be welcomed in our own country and would release similar British products for export to hard currency countries, and


with the proceeds of this trade, Czechoslovakia would be able to make sterling purchases in this country.
I ask my hon. Friend to give most serious consideration to this suggestion, coming, as it does, from an official source. I put it to him that in doing so he would take a step towards improving the trade relations between this country and Czechoslovakia. In view of the shortage of time, I cannot proceed further with my suggestions. I hope I have made it clear to my hon. Friend that there is a very serious situation arising as a result of lack of improvement in trade relations between this country and Eastern Europe and in the light of the necessity for a tremendous increase in that trade to five times more than we are doing now and far more than we were doing before the war.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I would add one point before my hon. Friend replies. Before I put that point I should like to say that I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) for raising this subject tonight, because we all realise that the functional approach is a most important and necessary one as a contribution towards peace.
The point I want to put to my hon. Friend concerns our trading relations with Russia. About six weeks ago, I think, there appeared in the Press an intimation that it was proposed to send a trading mission to Russia. Those of us who read that announcement were delighted with the prospect. Six weeks at least have passed and, so far as I am aware, nothing has materialised from that announcement. If it is convenient for my hon. Friend to do so, I think it would be useful and helpful tonight if he let us know whether any difficulties have been created or have cropped up which prevent the carrying out of that mission, and if difficulties exist, are they serious and on what side do they lie?

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because I can assure him and other hon. Members that it is the wish of the Government that trade between Eastern European countries and ourselves should be expanded. Unless that does happen, it will put not

only this country but the whole of Europe into difficulties when the generous help from the United States comes to an end.
It is true that there are two things which perhaps do seem to limit trade—the two mentioned by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley). He referred to Section 117 (d) in the E.R.P. Act. In that connection, the things which have been mentioned are still being discussed. There is no settlement, so it cannot be said at this stage that it does hamper trade. As far as our own security measures are concerned, we have to take them because no one can dispute that the present international situation is not as sweet as it should be. Therefore we on our side have to prevent certain goods going to those countries which at the moment are not as anxious as we would be to do trade in the things with which we can push ahead.
Let me also say that we cannot, despite the plea which my hon. Friend has made, ignore the matter of compensation for nationalised property. It is not just a question of meeting the selfish aspirations of stockholders or of concerns in this country. It is absolutely necessary in our own economic interest that we should get some compensation for property which at one time was earning dollars. So if one looks at it purely from the economic point of view, it does mean that we ought to get for the kind of development we put into those countries earlier, goods which offer some kind of return to this country. In matters of compensation we have never been difficult. We have been reasonable and have given many concessions.
We have done that so that trade should be expanded to benefit the economies both of Eastern and Western Europe and allow us to overcome our present economic ills. Nobody can dispute that the economic position of Europe was considerably damaged by the war, but even taking that into account, we have expanded trade between Eastern European countries and ourselves. If one takes countries such as Poland, Finland the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, trade is higher today than before the war. In the first nine months of 1948, £32 million of exported goods were sent to these countries compared with £20 million in the comparable period of 1938. Considering the great upheaval of the


war, that is something which cannot be turned lightly aside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock referred to trade with Russia, and said that trading developments had suffered a hitch; but that is not true. The talks are still going on and I hope they are going to be successful. My hon. Friend implied that while the Soviet Union had met its obligations in full we have failed to do so. If one put it in the way he demonstrated, it would appear that that was so but, in fact, it is not. The Russians, within the trade agreement, sent us grain for which they got sterling and with that sterling they have had the opportunity of buying goods within the schedule of the agreement; but if they chose to spend that sterling on things outside the agreement and to go into the sterling area outside the United Kingdom to buy coffee, cocoa, and wool, that is their responsibility.
As regards the actual trade in capital equipment in this country, tenders for 95 per cent. have been offered and we are anxious that this kind of trade should be developed. It is in the interest of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries not to spend in this country all the sterling which they earn because there are valuable goods outside and if they have no sterling balances trade is limited. In the case of the Russians, we shall still push on with our trade talks so that, in due course, they will be able to see that we carry out our obligation to see that the goods are available. It is for them to settle with the manufacturers in this country so far as terms of contract are concerned. I think the Russians know that. They are very good business men and no doubt in due course they will see that this awkward position in which we find ourselves today is something which can be improved if our economies become complementary as, I think, they should be.
One must recognize—and the Russians do appreciate it, although all other Eastern European countries do not—that we cannot give capital equipment immediately for the grain which they provide. They can sow the seed and get the grain in a year, but we cannot, in as short a time, get all the capital equipment we should like. There has to be confidence in each other. We ourselves

have to expand our capital equipment industries. We hear many demands for steel; other countries want it, but we also must build up our capital industries for the long, as well as the short, term. We want trade with Eastern Europe to be of a long-term nature because our economies are complementary.
My hon. Friend said there was very valuable timber and oil and other goods we could have if it were not for the stand we make on compensation which he said prevented trade expansion. In the case of all these countries where they have essential goods which we require we are prepared to meet them. We want to trade with them. Take the case of Czechoslovakia, which has been mentioned. They want to send to us what are less essential goods, what one might call fripperies, and we just cannot afford to exchange for those goods valuable capital equipment. Because our economic position is desperate, we have to say that we can only trade essential goods for essential goods. We hope we shall also be able to build up our trade in such a way that they will take our consumer goods and we will take their less essential goods.
In the case of Finland and some Scandinavian countries, we have been able to build up that method satisfactorily. I regret that in the Eastern European countries, in what I might call the Soviet area, they have not responded. Our essential equipment is in short supply and we cannot justifiably trade it in return for goods which we cannot, because of our own economic position, afford to take. Until we can build up trade in such a way that we trade essential goods for essential goods; until the industries in Eastern Europe see the pattern of trade working in a different way; until they are prepared to take out traditional exports of less essential goods to balance theirs, and to take our sterling which is valuable—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes past Twelve o'Clook.